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

1. At around 20:50 on May 27, 2012, the Defendants’ co-principaled the following roads: (a) Defendant A left alone while driving and left the scene; and (b) Defendant B, a working partner of Defendant A, heard the answer that “If the vehicle is related to this vehicle, if the vehicle caused the accident, she will come to contact with the driver and have a key to the traffic of the vehicle, she will go to the driver even if it comes to contact with the driver; and (c) Defendant B, a staff member of the workplace of Defendant A, heard, after receiving a 112 report that the traffic congestion caused the said vehicle by the EF car that left the site, she considered Defendant A as a police officer belonging to the F District, G, and the traffic control is being carried out; and (d) Defendant B, a staff member of the workplace of Defendant A, “I am to the driver, on the ground that the vehicle was in traffic accident.”

Defendant

A is combined with that, “A is the driver of this vehicle, and I are the driver of this vehicle,” and they go to the respective cities of our country, approximately six times at the same time, and continued to hold about four times at the face part of G with both drinking, and her face part of G two times at the head, and her part of G two times at the two head, and her part of G's face was cut up by her hand over two times, and her hair and her head was pushed up with G's chest and her head, and her head was pushed up over the floor, and Defendant B was “I am son son son son,” and Defendant B exceeded the face part of G with the front part of G's cell phone, she was off 6 times at the left part, and she was out of her face with the front part of G's cell phone, and she was out of her face with the front part of G's cell phone.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of order in G.