Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for six months and for four months, respectively.

However, the defendant A from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On May 18, 2014, at around 04:25, the Defendants 04:25, while drinking alcohol at the E-cafeteria located in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and drinking with other customers, and Defendant B was trying to restrain it by a slope G and H belonging to the F District Unit of the Seoul Southern Police Station, which was called upon 112 reports, and Defendant A expressed to G “the bit of bitch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch fch far fch farb feb fch fch far far farb farb far feb far far far far far fe.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to assault G and H and interfered with the legitimate performance of duties of the police officers on the job site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to capture on the on-site CCTV screen;

1. Articles 136 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The range of the recommended sentence for obstruction of the performance of official duties (in the case of obstruction of the performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) and the mitigation area (one to August);

2. The fact that Defendant A committed the instant crime even though he/she had twice the same fines prior to the sentence is criticized.

However, the Defendants committed the instant crime contingently while committing the instant crime, and the degree of assault and intimidation does not focus on the Defendants, and the police officers did not cause harm, etc. to the police officers, and the Defendants took advantage of a letter of intent to the victimized police officers by breaking their depth of the commission of the instant crime. Furthermore, the police officers seeking the Defendant’s preference against the Defendants, taking into account the role of the Defendants in the instant crime, the degree of assault, and other various sentencing factors indicated in the instant argument.