However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) at the Daejeon District Court on April 9, 2010, and Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of collective action, deadly weapon, etc.) at the Busan District Court's Branch Branch on January 22, 2007, and was sentenced to two years of a suspended sentence for a year of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc.

1. Defendant A around 00:30 on June 28, 2015, at “D cafeteria” located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon: (a) the Defendant frightened and frightened the Defendant B and frightened in B.

At around 00:40 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) reported that there was a person who scambling with a deadly weapon in front of “Dcafeteria”; and (b) reported that F, a police officer belonging to the Daejeon Western Police Station E-gu Seoul Police Station, called the Defendant and B’s fighting team, and (c) told F, who was scambling with the scambling situation, etc., while taking a bath to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by police officers and criminal investigations.

2. Defendant B, upon receiving the above date and time, at the above place, notified the police officers called up with the above F to arrest A as a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and took a bath to prevent the police officers who were called up to the scene of the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and attempted to arrest A as an offender in the act of committing a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of official duties concerning the arrest of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning G and F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to work days in the E District, etc.), recording records, and reports;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of each community service order [the scope of recommending punishment]: the obstruction of performance of official duties.