However, as to the defendants for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the defendants are above.

1. On December 13, 2014, Defendant A, at the first floor Hemmar house of the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Building, was under disturbance with the drinking water, with the drinking water, and was under disturbance with the calculation of the drinking water value. Defendant A, upon receiving a report from 112, was able to see the police officer, who was a police officer assigned to the Seoul Suwon Police Station Im box, sent to the site upon receiving the report, Defendant B, and Defendant B, who was able to pay and return back the drinking water. Defendant A told the above K with the desire to “spath and spath,” and Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties on handling reported duties and preventing crimes, etc., by spathing the 112 report duties and spathing the breast on one occasion after drinking the breast on one occasion.

2. Defendant B, at the above date, at the above time and place, the police officer, who was a police officer of the I police box for the foregoing reason, arrested A as a flagrant offender for the obstruction of performance of official duties, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the handling of 112 reporting duties and the flagrant offender, by informing A of the summary of the crime, the right to appoint a defense counsel, etc., and providing an opportunity to defend himself, and by preventing A from arresting him/her undermining his/her right arms of the aboveJ, thereby preventing him/her from being arrested.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of each police statement to K and J;

1. Lritten statements;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each criminal history record, etc.;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Consideration of the fact that the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for suspended sentence do not have the same force as all the Defendants, their depth is divided, and they are contingent crimes