Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A: (a) on October 31, 2015, in front of the E-way located in Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Suwon-si; (b) around 17:50 on October 31, 2015; and (c) on the E-

“B” while the head of the police station affiliated with B of the Seocheon-gu Police Station F District of the Seocheon-gu Police Station who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112 B, who was under the influence of alcohol, verified the details of the report to B, the said G is under the influence of alcohol.

The term “catch” refers to the fat of the city, and the fat of the above G was assaulted by cutting down the fat of G on the left side.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

2. On October 31, 2015, at around 18:05, Defendant B arrested Defendant A, who was a slope of F District of F District in the Seocheon-gu Police Station, on the charge of obstructing the Defendant’s performance of official duties, and arrested Defendant B as a flagrant offender, Defendant B, by hand, she was fluencing the parts of the above H’s title at several times, walked on the bridge, walked on the bridge, and assaulted Defendant B by taking the right-hand rank.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Each damaged photograph, 112 Report Processing Statement, Recording Book, and CD 1 CD (the Defendants and the defense counsel did not assault police officers as stated in facts constituting a crime, and they did not inform police officers of the doctrine that they did not arrest police officers as a current offender.

However, according to the above evidence, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendants assaulted police officers and the police officers informed the principle of Madle when they arrested the defendants.

Application of Statutes

1. The Defendants: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 136(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 136(1) and 136 of the Criminal Act

2. Defendant B of suspended execution: Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1)(hereinafter referred to as the following favorable circumstances) of the Criminal Act [the scope of a recommendation] that interferes with the execution of official duties.