However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

On October 16, 2016, A and Defendant B et al. were friendly-gu and frightened on the road in front of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the road in front of Yeongdeungpo-gu, and the road in front of D et al.

1. On October 16, 2016, Defendant A: (a) on the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at around 23:43, the front side of Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) the police officer affiliated with the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Military Police Station, who was called up after receiving 112 reports on the assault trial expenses, proposed the Defendant to protect D; (c) the Defendant dumped and dumped the eb

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place described in the above Paragraph 1, and at the 1112 report on the above assault time, the police officer F of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, who called out after receiving a report on the above assault time, prevented the police officer from working both. The Defendant 2 f of the above F’s head debt.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. The first and second statement made to D;

1. Each police statement concerning E and F;

1. A written statement of G and D;

1. Notification to a department related to 112 case reporting;

1. Photographs of damaged police officers;

1. A photograph of a CCTV closure;

1. Application of CCTV image data-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and the choice of punishment (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, each of the suspended sentence (the defendants);

1. The scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines [the range of the recommended sentence] of the obstruction of the performance of official duties (the obstruction of the performance of official duties and the coercion of official duties) (the decision on the recommended area] basic area [the scope of the recommended sentence] from June to April; and

2. Circumstances unfavorable to the determination of sentence: The instant crime committed by the Defendants by assaulting a police officer and obstructing the exercise of legitimate public authority is not very good.

The defendants live together with a police officer's breath or hair.