However, from the date of the final judgment of this case, each of the defendants is against the defendants for one year.

1. On November 22, 2019, Defendant A, on the first floor of “D” located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim E (54 years of age) and the victim F (53 years of age) reported statements, but the victims were not their own account statements and returned back again, and without any reason, followed the victim E’s breath-throth, and led the victim to the victim’s escape from the above main point of view, leading the victim F to the victim’s breath of the bridge because of the defect that the victim F attempted to restrain the Defendant.

2. At around 23:50 on November 22, 2019, Defendant B: (a) arrested a flagrant offender committing a crime, such as assault as described in the preceding paragraph, by the police officer I of the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station; (b) arrested a flagrant offender, who is the Defendant’s seat; and (c) tried to take A into custody to the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station as the Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station; (d) write down a letter of arrest, etc. of a flagrant offender; (c) sound “I was a major offender with no internal friendship; and (d) with the entrance of the said patrol, I was pushed the police officer’s seat back seat of the patrol; and (e) opened the patrol to take the back seat of the driver’s seat of the patrol with his hand; and (e) opened the patrol to take the back seat of the driver’s seat of the patrol; and (e) started the patrol to take the front seat of the police officer’s seat from the police officer’s seat to the A; and (e) started the patrol from the A.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning detention and management of a flagrant offender arrested by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to F, E, and I;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (to listen to a shot phone statement, to confirm CCTV images inside and outside the earth, to hear victim E-mail statement, and to hear victim F phone statement);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Commercial concurrence;