However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, the defendants are above two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. 피고인 A 피고인은 2016. 4. 26. 04:00 경 인천 남동구 문화 서로 26 수협 사거리 앞에서, ‘ 피고 인의 일행인 C, D, B이 E 와 시비 끝에 싸우고 있다’ 는 취지의 신고를 받고 그곳에 출동한 인천 남동경찰서 F 지구대 소속 순찰차 34호 근무 경찰 관인 경위 G 등이 D에게 사건 경위 등에 대하여 묻다가 D가 G에게 반말을 하며 반항하여 ‘ 반말을 하지 말라’ 고 하면서 제지하는 것을 보고, G에게 ‘ 씨 발 새끼야, 저쪽으로 가서 맞짱 뜨자, 개새끼, 넌 오늘 내가 죽여 버린다 ’라고 욕설을 하면서 때릴 듯이 덤벼들고, 오른손 주먹을 쥐고 G의 얼굴에 휘두르려고 하고, 얼굴을 G의 얼굴에 들이미는 등 G을 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers related to criminal investigation, etc.

2. At around 04:10 on April 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) arrested a police officer who was dispatched to the scene, including a police officer, by interfering with the performance of official duties of the police officer; (b) arrested him as a current offender; (c) prevented him from opening a door of the patrol police officer No. 31 and closing the door by his body; and (d) Ha expressed his desire to “I am sweld with the tax base of rural taxation; and (c) prevents H from decrising his hand by hand, and assaulted H by keeping the chest’s chest so long as he was sweled.”

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on criminal investigation and transfer of a flagrant offender.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to G, H, E, and I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (the 79th page, 82th page of investigation records);

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants who choose the punishment for the crime: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the Social Service Order and the observation of protection: the Criminal Act.