Defendant

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

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 23:55 on April 15, 2020, the Defendant heard the horses that the Defendant “at all, for any reason,” from the head of the police station affiliated with the D District Unit E, called “YYE,” who was called out after having received a report of 112 that the Defendant avoided the operation of the Defendant, and assaulted the Defendant to walk the F’s bridge by exposing the arms, booming the arms of the above E, and blocking the Defendant’s chest.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. Defendant B, at the above temporary location, expressed a desire to create a defendant who can enjoy from the floor by G in the background of the said earth, and assaulted the above G’s bridge to walk on several occasions.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement to G, F, and E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of violence on each statement of H and I, photographs taken by the police branch, video recording of the police camp in mobilization, and to photographics;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant A of ordinary concurrence: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The Defendants: Imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The Defendants of suspended execution: (a) the content of the tangible force used by the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties; (c) the number of victimized police officers; and (d) the Defendants’ failure to repeat the crime against the mistake; (b) Defendant A was the first offender; and (c) Defendant B had no other penalty force other than the previous criminal records of a fine of this kind on January 2002; and (d) the Defendants’ age, character, behavior, career, environment, circumstances and outcome of the crime; and (c) the scope of the sentencing conditions and the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines, including