However, with respect to Defendant B, the above judgment shall be given for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Defendant B, at around 02:00 on December 20, 2016, sent to the scene after receiving a report from Guro-gu Seoul, Guro-gu, Seoul, and 112 on December 20, 201, received confirmation of his personal information and request for presentation of his identification card from the police officer E belonging to the Seoul, Guro-gu Police Station D police box, Seoul, to the police officer E, who was called to the site, and “ why you want to speak his name top;

In doing the bath theory, the knife flabed the boom E with his hand, and the flabed flabed flab, and flabed the blabe E.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers to interfere with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and criminal investigations.

2. Defendant A, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph 1, and at the police station D, at the police station located in Seoul Guro-gu, Seoul, to arrest B as a current offender of interference with the performance of official duties due to the reasons stated in paragraph 1, Defendant A’s body was carried out by the police officer, and Defendant F’s body was sealed by the police officer assigned to the same police officer, to restrain B from performing official duties.

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers, thereby obstructing police officers' legitimate execution of duties concerning handling of reported cases and criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant B and A

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and E;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The Defendants: Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of interference with the performance of official duties in the judgment

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of the community service order: Determination of the same sentence as the order shall be made in consideration of the fact that Defendant B erred with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, and that there was no record of punishment for the same kind of crime obstructing the performance of official duties;

Defendant

Although considering the favorable circumstances that there is a mistake and that the degree of assault is not serious, the above defendant has already been punished twice due to the same kind of crime of obstructing the performance of official duties, he/she again commits the crime of this case.

. All other things.