However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who has been a customer in a cafeteria, and Defendant B is an operator of the cafeteria.

1. Defendant A

A. On May 29, 2014, around 20:30 on May 29, 2014, the Defendant made a public insult of the victim of the victim’s slope G of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station, which was called “112 reported as opening noise in front of the D cafeteria located in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, requested that the victim’s slope G of the Seoul Gwanak-gu Police Station, who was called “112 reported.” As such, the Defendant made a public insult of the victim by referring to as “Chewing flasium,” “flasium,” “flasium,” “flasium,” and “if the police officer is unable to understand this.

B. The Defendant’s obstruction of performance of official duties is above.

On the ground that the above slope G, who was dispatched to the site after receiving the above report at the time and place stated in paragraph (1), was assaulted by the police officer on the ground that he saw that the police officer was unable to understand this degree, he she was frighter, frighter, frighter, and frighter G on the part of the ship, etc., and assaulted him as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, he saw him to arrest him as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

2. Defendant B’s Defendant A

At the time and place of the entry in the port, the above slope G used to arrest the above slope A and the person without name as a flagrant offender in the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, such as breathing and spathing, pushing ahead, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement of H, I, and J;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Evidence records 25 pages);

1. Article 311 of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment): Defendant B: Article 136 of the Criminal Act.