Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2015, at around 22:00 on December 24, 2015, the Defendants, together with C, had two customers, such as Domini F, by entering the music place in Kimhae-si D.

1. Defendant A is running a female business around 22:50 on the same day.

“Around the 112 report by C her wife, H, and patrolman I, who are in the process of regulating the violation of the Food Sanitation Act against the main business owner J and F, etc. of the Kim Sea Police Station G G G District of the Seoul High Sea, sent out by C 112, sent to H, who was in the process of regulating the violation of the Food Sanitation Act, she was pushed the horse to H, and she was in his/her hand treated as a her hand, with his/her her son’s h's shot belt.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of food sanitation law violations.

2. Defendant B, at around 22:50 on the same day, expressed that he was stuffed in the math of the horse Ha and “h Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ham Ha

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of food sanitation law violations.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to H and J;

1. Application of each statement, each of the Acts and subordinate statutes reporting an investigation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing) include the following: (a) the injured police officer demanding the injured police officer to use a letter of intent to punish the Defendants after the prosecution of the instant case; (b) the degree of assault is minor; (c) Defendant A was only one time before the fine was imposed for twenty (20) years prior to the prosecution of the instant case; and (d) Defendant B was only one time before the driving of a fine fine for about ten (10) years prior to the punishment; and (e) the Defendants are against