A Imprisonment for eight months and fines for 300,000 won, Defendant B's imprisonment for six months and fines for 300,000 won.

Defendant

On May 15, 2014, the Defendants and Defendant B were under the influence of alcohol on the way that they were able to drink and return to drink after drinking together with D and E, who are their own employees on May 15, 2014.

1. Defendant A

A. On May 15, 2014, around 23:30, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at around 39, the entrance of the 39 U. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. D’s demand for a drinking measurement by a slope H belonging to the district, such as Kim Jong-gu Police Station’s living safety and G in the F district, and the state of drinking water, and the Defendant’s demand for a drinking measurement was prohibited, and the Defendant’s drinking measurement was obstructed for about 20 minutes, while he said the s

이에 같은 지구대 소속 경위 I가 피고인을 D으로부터 분리시키려고 할 때, 마침 경위 I 옆에 서 있던 B이 경위 I의 뒤에서 그의 팔과 근무복을 잡아 당겼고 경위 I가 B을 뿌리치자, 이를 보고 있던 피고인이 화가 나 왼손 주먹으로 경위 I의 얼굴 부위를 1회 때리고, 발로 그의 낭심 부위를 1회 찼다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the drinking measurement.

B. The Defendant damaged property by destroying the victim’s face at the time, place, as described in the above paragraph (1), one time, and destroying the victim’s face value at the market price of KRW 310,000, which is the victim’s ownership.

2. Defendant B’s obstruction of the performance of official duties was arrested of a flagrant offender for the foregoing reasons at the time, place, and on the above grounds, Defendant B’s arrest of a flagrant offender for the crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the head of Kim Jong Police Station’s life safety and the head of the J as well as the circumstances leading to the F District Department’s assignment, who were arrested A, were brupted with both care and care, and the PacificJ once brupted with soil on the bottom of the ppuri.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer.

3. Defendants’ 3.