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

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendants, on August 28, 2017, 23:40 around the Daejeon Esing room in the Daejeon Esing-gu D, “fortubing customers.”

“Around 112, the police officer G, who was called for, after receiving a report, asked the 112 report, asked the background of the police officer G belonging to the Daejeon Pream Station, Defendant A her bath, franched the franch of the said G, and franshed his fingers after having sold the franch of the said G in drinking by drinking, and Defendant B h was the police officer belonging to the same fransh with the intent to put the fat at home;

Before doing so, the part of the said H’s bath was assessed by hand, and breathd by breath and breathing the breath.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made with respect to G and H;

1. Each written statement of the I;

1. Reporting on the arrest of the case;

1. Investigative reports and investigative reports (to hear statements from victims);

1. A place where he works for the F District;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the spot and damaged photographs;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Each of the Defendants [Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act]

1. Tradeal concurrence Defendants: Each of the defendants [Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act]

1. Defendants of choice of punishment: Each of them [Selection of Imprisonment]

1. Defendants in the suspension of execution: Each [Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act] [Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act] / [Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act] / [Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is applicable to the Defendants’ acts of committing each of the crimes of this case; the Defendants appears to have committed the crimes of this case in a contingent manner; the Defendants agreed with each of the pertinent police officers; Defendant B did not have the same criminal record in the case of Defendant B; and Defendant B did not have the criminal record and only the criminal record of a fine for the crime of this case; Defendant B’s act of assaulting the police to perform

Therefore, the defendants' responsibility for each crime is heavy.

that may be seen;