Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A around 00:10 on June 11, 2017, at around 00:0, at around 11, 2017, the Defendant A, under the influence of alcohol on the roads of 15-5 Dong Do-dong Do-dong 15-5, attempted to damage his vehicle on the front of the 15-5 Dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-dong Do-

As a result, Defendant A interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by police officers and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Investigation Report - Application of the Act and subordinate statutes attached to images of “fadg” in the shooting of police officers in the field;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Although it is not good that a police officer who is performing official duties for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was assaulted, the punishment is determined as ordered by taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.:

Part of innocence - Defendant B

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) at the same time, at the same time and place as the facts charged in the judgment, Defendant B used to arrest Defendant A as a current offender interfering with the performance of official duties; (b) obstructed Defendant A from taking the said E’s hand and arms on hand; and (c) obstructed Defendant A from carrying them onto the patrol vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case by police officers and the arrest of flagrant offenders.

2. Defendant B asserts that, although the police officer’s right to prevent the Defendant A from carrying on the patrol vehicle, the police officer’s selling of the police officer who attempted to take a lock against A does not have any longer.

In this Court, the witness E shall be the subject of this Court.