However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the above sentence against Defendant C.

1. On June 14, 2014, at around 05:55, the Defendant assaulted the Defendant at the top of the F hotel located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, and 112 reported as an assaulting the main employee, and H and security guards of the Seoul Gangseo-nam Police Station G police station that called “satisfing the catfat” in order for the Defendant to grasp the circumstances of the instant case, and assaulted the Defendant by using the Defendant’s h’s catflor at one time and three to four times of drinking face, and by destroying the h’s catflick face to the Defendant’s catflor.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in regard to 112 reports.

2. Defendant B and C committed assault by the police officers, at the time, and at the place specified in Paragraph 1, in order to prevent the said police officers from arresting A as a flagrant offender committing an obstruction of performance of official duties, such as flating and destroying flats of the instant I.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Some statements in the suspect examination protocol of Defendant A and B by the prosecution;

1. Some statements made by the Defendants in each police interrogation protocol

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Written Statement;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Presentation of motion pictures taken by police officers accompanying the police officer);

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Defendant B and C of Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A of ordinary concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Selection of each crime to imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Defendant C: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant C of the community service order: The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The offenses against the recommended sentencing criteria shall be subject to the application of the sentencing criteria, and they shall fall under six to one year and four months in the basic area of the first category; and

2. The defendant A has been punished by a fine and a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of violence in the past.