A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.

However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On February 1, 2017, at around 22:25, Defendants were assaulted by visitors in front of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-building.

“A police officer affiliated with the Seoul Young Military Police Station G District of the Seoul Young Military Police Station who was dispatched to the site after receiving F’s 112 report from F, would have H assaulted himself by Defendant B from F.

“A” hearing the horses to Defendant B, Defendant A was frightened with a police officer H’s fright at the right arms, Defendant B was frighted with a police officer’s fright at one time, and Defendant B was fright at one time to walked with the police officer’s H’s fright at one time; Defendant B was fright to walked with the police officer’s 4-5 fright of the police officer; Defendant A was fright to arrest Defendant A as a flagrant offender under suspicion of assault against F; Defendant A was fright to the right side of the police officer I on his hand; Defendant A was frighted with a police officer’s chest at 4-5 fright to drinking.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the 112 reporting duty of police officers and legitimate execution of duties related to the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

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

1. Stop photographs of a police officer in mobilization;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning a photographic image of a mobile phone;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service Order do not have the same force, Defendant A committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of punishment by the same force, and even if he/she had the record of punishment, it appears that the Defendants committed the instant crime under the influence of alcohol; the Defendants deposited a considerable amount for compensating for damage; the Defendants led to the confession and reflect of the crime; the Defendants’ age, sexual behavior, circumstances after the crime; and family relationship.