Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of 4,00,000 won and by imprisonment of 6 months for each of the defendants B.

Defendant

A The above fine shall be imposed.

Criminal facts

1. On June 27, 2016, at around 05:45, the Defendant: (a) received 112 report and received questioning from the slope G belonging to the police station Fab, who was not dispatched to the site, on the part of Defendant A, of the trade name “E” located in Gyeong-gun, and was asked by Defendant A about the circumstances of the instant case; (b) he was found to have been erroneous; and (c) he was found to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have the

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers in regard to 112 reported duties.

2. Defendant B, at the time, and at the place described in paragraph (1), the said G was 3 to 4 times sealed the chest part of the said G by hand to prevent the Defendant from arresting the said G as a flagrant offender committing the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties, and from arresting the said G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's 112 reporting duty and legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. A H statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for report on internal investigation (12 report on the confirmation of details of report);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Selection of a fine for Defendant A who is selected to be sentenced to a punishment (including the record of being sentenced to a fine of three million won for the crime of occupational breach of trust in 201) and Defendant B’s choice of imprisonment with prison labor

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B of the community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant A of the provisional payment order: Reasons for sentencing Defendant B under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines [Determination of Sentencing] Application of the obstruction of the performance of official duties (decision of the obstruction of the performance of official duties) basic area (decision of the recommendation area] [Scope of recommendation area] 6 months to 1 year and 4 months (decision of the suspension of execution of official duties].