beta
Text
Defendant
B Imprisonment for 10 months, Defendant A’s imprisonment for 10 months, Defendant C’s imprisonment for 6 months, and Defendant D.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendants are those engaged in the Chuncheon “G” film theater within the movie theater.
1. On November 12, 2016, Defendant B and Defendant B collected two beer diseases, which are dangerous articles, from the victim J, who had been seated in the Iart Club in Chuncheon, around 00:20 on November 12, 2016.
Then, the Defendants were able to catch the breath of the victim's breath, and the Defendant A got the left shoulder of the victim at one time.
Accordingly, the Defendants jointly committed violence against the victim by carrying a dangerous beer disease, which is a dangerous thing.
2. On November 12, 2016, at around 00:25, the Defendants asked Defendant B to inquire about whether or not the Defendants committed assault and personal information on the part of the K District L (49 years old) affiliated with the K District, Defendant B, while taking a bath, and Defendant B was arrested Defendant B, who was a policeman (31 years old) affiliated with the same District as L, and arrested Defendant B as the current offender, Defendant A took a bath view, and draw up the side interest of M over the floor of M, and Defendant D d d d d d d d d d d f d d d d d d d d d d d d d f d d d d d d d d f d d d d d d d d e., Defendant C again.
The indictment provides that Defendant C was “I am out of the rear”. However, according to CD (the page 22 pages of the investigation record) which was reproduced and confirmed by this court, Defendant C was confirmed to have drawn in M, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C did not go beyond M, and there is no other evidence to prove that Defendant C got out of M.
B. The above correction ex officio is made inasmuch as it does not disadvantage the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, recognizing the attitude of assault more minor in the obstruction of the execution of official duties.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.
b)a summary of the evidence;