Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for four months, respectively.

However, as to the Defendants, this is against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A: (a) around 00:20 on February 4, 2017, at around 00:20, Defendant D of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) “A” in front of Defendant D, “a man spawed by three male persons” refers to “a man spawn by a police officer,” and “a man spawn by a police officer,” and “a man spawn by a police officer,” and “a man spawn by a police officer,” and “a man spawn by a police officer, spawn of the instant case,” who was on the back of the patrol police officer, voluntarily boarded the police officer, on the back of the patrol police officer, who did not open a door, and was in front of the Defendant.”

F. The chest of the F was pushed down with the head of the defendant, thereby going beyond the floor.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention and control of crimes over about 20 minutes.

2. Defendant B: (a) took a portable device (PDA) at the same time and at a place as set forth in paragraph (1); (b) took a portable device; and (c) taken the above Defendant A’s behavior, Defendant B set off the front of the above G while blocking the Defendant’s mobile phone in order to interfere with this.

In other words, he/she taken the body of G and pushed it in several times.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the prevention and control of crimes over about 20 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. A patrol box, a CD;

1. Application of each statute to PDA-related video CDs;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting the crime: Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment);

1. Defendants on probation: Defendant B’s defense counsel’s assertion as to Defendant B’s defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; however, in light of the following: (a) the circumstance leading up to the instant crime; (b) the mode of conduct by Defendant B; and (c) the degree of interference with the shooting of G, which is acknowledged by the evidence of each of the aforementioned evidence.