Defendant

A fails to pay the above fine.

1. On August 9, 2015, Defendant A, under the influence of alcohol on the front of the ‘D convenience store' located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, U.S., U.S. on the road, and Defendant A, upon receiving a report on fighting on the street, she fighted with E, who was in motion, and the police officer G of the F District Police Station in the U.S., which called fighting on the street, was sitting into the Defendant A with both arms, and fightd, and the Defendant A took a bath for the said police officer, and the said police officer’s blue part of the blue part of the blue part of the above police officer, thereby hindering the performance of public duties concerning the maintenance of the order of police officers by taking the blue part of the blue frame of the police officer at one time.

2. Defendant B, at the time, at the time, and at the place of paragraph (1) of this Article, prevented the police officer G from assaulting the above A, and, after cutting off the arms of the above police officer, he brought about the body of Defendant B, Defendant B expressed the police officer “a bit of bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a police officer,” and obstructed the police officer’s performance of official duties concerning the maintenance of the order of the police officer by

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs among investigation reports (reports accompanied by motion pictures cd and photographs);

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants to be detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: One of the most important reasons for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is the degree of obstruction of the performance of official duties. However, the Defendants’ respective crimes of this case are incidental to the exercise of tangible power against E, and the Defendants’ punishment was determined by considering their personal relations, age, occupation, etc., as they appear to have no past record directly reflected in the instant case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.