A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, this decision is delivered to the Defendants.

Defendant

A on May 29, 2014, at the Busan District Court, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and three years of suspended execution for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, etc., with deadly weapons, etc.), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 6, 2014.

1. On April 13, 2014, at around 10:25, Defendant A saw the drinking in front of the Hen-do-ro 73-gil, Busan, Seocheon-ro, 73-ro, and 40-ro, Defendant A opened a door and opened the door, and received a 112 report, Defendant A, a police officer belonging to the Busan, Busan, the C District District of the Police Station, called the Defendant “Ie-be in front of the door,” and removed the Defendant’s slope D from the above slope, “Ie-be in front of the door,” and “Ie-be in front of the door, Ie-be, saw-be, saw-be in front of the door at the time of the wind, saw-be, saw-be in front of the door, and Goe-be in front of the troke’s body.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers about 112 police reports.

2. Defendant B, on the grounds as stated in paragraph (1) at the date and time, at the place, and described in paragraph (1), on the following grounds: (a) Defendant A, who was a police officer belonging to the Busan Summer Police Station C District, tried to arrest Defendant A as a flagrant offender under the suspicion of obstruction of the performance of official duties, shall be killed of Defendant A, “Ia, this police spons by affixing his cellular phone, and spons will be affixed with screen image, spacks, and if you move well; and (b) the public prosecutor-friendly contact with him, all spacks will be discarded off; and (c) Defendant 2 took a cell phone and taken the cell phone and received the e and spack

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Photographs (such as a part, etc. of damaged vehicles);

1. Investigation report (at the same time, etc.);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: criminal records and references;