A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B imprisonment of 8 months, and Defendant C of 6 months, respectively.

(b).

1. On December 22, 2012, the Defendants’ interference with the Defendants’ duties: (a) around 21:50, on the grounds that the restaurant in the name of “H” operated by the victim G in Dongducheon-si, the victim G, would drink and demand the Defendants to share alcohol; and (b) Defendant B, while taking a bath to “Ick, I would like to go to go to the fri; and (c) Defendant D, while taking the bath to “Ick, I would like to go to go to the frith; and (d) Defendant C would be able to take a bath with the other customers while taking a bath.”

In addition, despite the request of the police officer called out upon the report of the above G, the Defendants continued to enter the inside and outside of the above restaurant and expressed the police officer's desire to see and call out, and caused the disturbance to go away from the place.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force for about 40 minutes until they are arrested to police officers dispatched at around 22:30 on the same day.

2. At around 22:30 on the same day, Defendant A’s obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the Defendant injured the victim’s J (the age of 24) who was a policeman belonging to the Dong-gu Police Station I police box, who was called to the scene after receiving a report that the Defendant’s daily behaviors, such as the above H, B, and D, are going to evade the disturbance within the restaurant, provided that the victim expressed his desire to identify the circumstances of the instant case against the said restaurant operator G, and that the victim “the victim shall be able to do so, she will do so, she will do so, she will do so, she will do so, and she pushed the victim’s fat with the victim’s fat, she pushed the victim’s fat, and she was injured by the left fat of the victim’s fat, which requires treatment for about 10 days.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate performance of duties by the police officer regarding the on-site investigation, etc., and inflicted injury on the victim at the same time.

3. The obstruction of performance of official duties by Defendant B, C, and D.