However, each of the above defendants is against the defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

A around 03:10 on May 5, 2015, he was arrested as a flagrant offender of a separate assault case at the Seoul Western Police Station E District located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the police officers belonging to the said E District would refuse to get on the patrol vehicle to escort from police officers belonging to the Seoul Western Police Station to the Seoul Western Police Station. He cut the title of the F(56) in the course of the E District belonging to the said E District, cut off the arms of the said police officer, was hicked by hand, was hicked with G (47 years of age) and knicked with G(47 years of age) in his hand, and the Defendant B knicked the f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's f's bage, and

As a result, the Defendants conspired to assault police officers, thereby obstructing police officers' legitimate performance of official duties concerning criminal investigation and escort of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A written statement;

1. Images and CDs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (Attachment of documents to be sent by cases of violence against A), and investigation records of cases of violence;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting a crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the ordinary concurrences of crimes;

1. Selection of the penalty, and the decision of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, each of the suspended sentence (the defendants shall be considered as favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Determination of the defendants and defense counsel's assertion of the community service order (the defendants) under Article 62-2 of each Criminal Code

1. The main point of the argument is that Defendant A did the same act as stated in the facts of crime, but it is argued that he denies the public conspiracy relationship with Defendant B, and Defendant B denies not only the public conspiracy relationship with Defendant A but also did not perform the same act as stated in the facts of crime. Thus, Defendant A denies all the facts of crime.

2. Determination

(a)in the case of co-offenders who are co-processed with regard to the conspiracys by more than one person, the conspiracys are legally applicable.