Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 4,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 11, 2016, at the “E cafeteria” located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City around 22:10, Defendant A sent to the site after receiving a report on 112, and “the time limit was attached to the toilet”, Defendant A expressed the victim H, who was affiliated with the Seoul luminous Police Station G District G District, and listened to the circumstances of the case from the Defendant’s daily behaviors, and expressed the victim H, etc. in the presence of other customers, Defendant A expressed his desire to read “police chewing, grings, public strings, and grings in a way that they want to read “H’s chest”, and Defendant A h was kneeped two times with his head, and hick’s head, who was adjacent to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant assaulted police officers, thereby obstructing police officers from performing their legitimate duties on the handling of 112 reported cases and the maintenance of public peace and order, and openly insulting the victims.

2. Defendant B, at the date, time, time, and place specified in paragraph (1), expressed the police officer’s desire to arrest A as a flagrant offender, “a sprink to be sprinked,” and the police officer’s desire to get the left shoulder away by getting the front shoulder of H, was sprinked on the fishing floor, and sprinked in excess of I on the upper shoulder of the left shoulder.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases and the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. Each written confirmation, each notice of arrest and detention [the defendant and his defense counsel did not notify the so-called "the so-called" principle at the time when the above police officers were arrested the defendants, and thus, it cannot be deemed legitimate performance of official duties. Therefore, the defendants' exercise of force to police officers during the resistance process constitutes self-defense. The records of this case, the records of this case, and the notice of arrest and detention (the contents of the arrest of flagrant offenders are identical) are the same.

the entry of this chapter and I’s investigative agency and this section.