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

1. Defendant A’s bodily injury on June 16, 2015: (a) around 23:50 on a taxi operated by the victim C (50 years of age) and was able to avoid any disturbance, such as taking a bath for the said C, while drunkly drinking.

On June 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 00:00, at the long distance of 139 p.m. in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, 139 p.m., the Defendant: (b) left a taxi in the Defendant’s disturbance; and (c) taken the victim’s face from the vehicle to the vehicle; and (d) taken the victim’s face from the vehicle to the vehicle, and (e) taken the f.g., the victim’s face to the

2. The Defendant, at around 00:20 on June 17, 2015, arrested a police officer who was dispatched for the same reason as the above Section 1., within the Seocho-gu Seocho Police Station Estation in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, on the grounds that the above Category C was a perpetrator, and subsequently took a bath on the ground that the above Party C was identified as a perpetrator, and as the Party C would be at the time, he was able to stop with the above Party F, etc., such as the police officer F of the police box where the above Party C was assigned to the police box where he was in charge of the above Party B, and the Defendant was able to escape a disturbance that was loaded on the tebs within the police box where he was in charge of the above Party B.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the maintenance of order in criminal investigation and police box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement of police statement concerning G and F;

1. C’s statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CDs and photographic data;

1. Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of imprisonment

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter, taking into account the following circumstances) are as follows: Defendant A [the scope of recommending sentence] and Defendant A [the scope of recommending sentence] have made efforts to recover damages not to be punished (special mitigation).