Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a report from the Defendant on the fact that gambling is being put up on a scambling scam in a long-term of 52, Seo-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 15:44; and (b) reported to the victim D, a police officer affiliated with the C police box, who was called up with the Defendant, on the scambling scam, “A scambling scam. H. A. Scambox. A. Scambling the police officer.

It is inevitable to do so.

The victim publicly insultingd the victim in a large sound.

B. The Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties, at the time and place specified in the preceding paragraph, committed assault, such as: (a) the Defendant: (b) was able to restrain the Defendant who was sent to C police boxes on the same ground as the date and place specified in the preceding paragraph; (c) was able to take a bath to E; and (d) he was able to take the front hand of the soldiers

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and handling of reported cases.

2. Defendant B

A. The Defendant, upon receiving a report that gambling is being executed at the time and place specified in paragraph 1’s paragraph (a), is the victim D, who is a police officer belonging to the police box called up, and reported to the victim D, who is a police officer assigned to the police box.

Therefore, I have to do anything.

R. S. T. S. T. T. T. B. T. S. police officer and police officer

H. The victim openly insultingd the victim by referring to the large sound of bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch.

B. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the time, at the time, at the place specified in paragraph (1) of Section 1, and at the place, assaulted the victim D, who was a policeman affiliated with C police box, about five times, to arrest and interfere with the police officer’s attempt to arrest the Defendant who was a soldier or policeman.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the maintenance of police officers' order and handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D and E;

1. Defendants of the pertinent legal provisions regarding criminal facts: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and the Criminal Act.