A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 4,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

1. The defendant A, on June 24, 2020, around 23:52, around 202, in the vicinity of C apartment house D, and "masts of male".

C. At the time when the police officer F ( South, 47 years old, etc.) who is the police officer belonging to the police unit E District of the Kunju Police Station, who was called upon 112 report, returned home to B, who is the defendant and the defendant at the workplace, the police officer at the Kunju Police Station E District, etc., was faced with the disturbance, such as getting on the patrol car and locking the door of the vehicle, etc., which led the above F's arms to the following.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. At around 00:28 on June 25, 2020, Defendant B arrested a flagrant offender at the same place as the above F and other police officers under the suspicion of interference with the performance of official duties due to the same reason as the above A A, and 112 patrols on the back of the 112 patrols, “I do not am with this weather francing,” and “I do not am francing. I opened a chief door to prevent the said F from departing from the 112 patrols aboard, and attached it, thereby preventing the said F from operating the 112 patrols.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers in flagrant offenders and the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to the Defendants’ legal statement F

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136(1) of the same Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement of the workhouse (defendants)

1. In light of the motive of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the crime is not likely to be committed.

However, taking into account the fact that the Defendants repented and seriously reflected the mistakes, the fact that the state of exploitation appears to have led to any contingent crime, the fact that the victimized police officer is the captain of the Defendants, and that the police officer is the first offender who has no record of criminal punishment.