beta
Text
Defendant
A Imprisonment for six months, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won.
Defendant
B The above fine.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A
A. On October 29, 2019, from around 20:50 to 21:00 on the same day, the Defendant interfered with the business, in front of the “E” display stand operated by the victim D (the age of 55) located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, for the reason that the victim was responsible for accounting, the Republic of Korea developed on the ground that “The Republic of Korea is not fluent due to the sty of both gue, p.s., and the Baga is flue,” and the Defendant was unable to fluendd by the victim by being pushedd with the victim as displayed.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's temporary business by force.
B. On October 29, 2019, the Defendant of obstruction of performance of official duties is above the Defendant’s rank around 21:00.
At the place indicated in the port, “at 112 persons who take the scam at scams” reported to the effect that “at scam in scams, two scams scams scams at scams,” and assaulted by G on the left side of G due to the scamscams, including those who want to listen to the Defendant’s statement.
Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.
2. Defendant B: (a) around October 29, 2019, around 21:00.
at the place described in paragraph 1-b,
With the same background as the statement in the paragraph, the Seoul Apyeong police station was arrested as a flagrant offender suspected of larceny by an assistant assistant H belonging to the F District of the Seoul Bupyeong Police Station, and was established at the same time to board the F District 13 patrol vehicle of the Seoul Bupyeong Police Station.
In the patrol car, the Defendant continuously assaulted the Defendant with the hand, with the hand hick, which read, “after the police,” which was inside the patrol car, which was quihed under the hum of the slope H.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the handling of the 112 reported case by police officers and legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant B’s legal statement
1. Each police statement of H, G, and D;
1. An investigation report (related to the verification of CCTV images outside the E);