Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

Provided, That each of the above punishments shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On August 8, 2015, at around 13:50, the Defendants received a demand from G to speak the circumstances of the case from F of the Embox, the police box affiliated with the Embox, which was called after receiving a report while under the influence of alcohol at the “Mandong Park Park,” located in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, Gwangju, by stating that “I am the same police box, where I am the same spath, and where I am the mother of the same spath, I am?” while doing so, I pl up G’s finger, and Defendant B tried to arrest Defendant A as an offender in the obstruction of the performance of official duties, and caused Defendant B to spawn the spathn and spathn the spathn at one time, and spathn three times more.

Accordingly, when G arrested Defendant B as an offender in the act of obstruction of the performance of official duties, Defendant A suffered bodily injury, such as the elbow, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment from the perspective of several times the parts of G’s head and the like.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to inflict an injury on police officers by carrying dangerous objects, and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police officer's statement about D and G;

1. Statement of opinion;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 144(2) (main sentence) and (1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants subject to discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendants on probation: (a) the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendants and their defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the grounds for sentencing) are asserted to the effect that the Defendants were in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime; and (b) according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants were examined.