Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

At around 08:55 on June 28, 2013, the Defendants: (a) committed a assault on the part of the head of the Suwon-nam Police Station D Boxes affiliated with the Suwon-nam Police Station, which called for a drunk driving report in front of the center of the bones Sea State at the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which was called for a drunk driving report; (b) the Defendants took a bath to restrain the Defendant A to desire for a brucing and booming the chest of the slope E; (c) the Defendant B took a brue with a brush of the sloping E by pushing the Defendant for a brupt and bruing the brue E with the brush of the Defendant to arrest the Defendant A, thereby harming the Defendant on the ground floor.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the legitimate execution of public duties by police officers on the maintenance of public order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Photographs photographs of damaged parts;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Defendants: Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B to suspend the sentence: Fine of 300,000 won;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse;

1. Defendant B of suspended sentence: Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (as police officers E failed to fully inform and obtain the Defendants of the developments of the case and the purpose of the investigation, the Defendants appears to have committed the instant crime in a considerable interest, and eventually, the Defendants appears to have been prevented from committing the instant crime, taking into account the fact that Defendant B had no record of punishment, and the relationship between the Defendants, etc.)

1. Defendant A of the provisional payment order: The Defendants did not assault the police officer E, and even if the Defendants exercised force to E, the Defendants’ act was in the course of resisting the illegal arrest of police officers, and thus, the obstruction of performance of official duties cannot be established.

l.p. g., p.