Defendants shall be punished by a fine of 3.5 million won.

If the Defendants did not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On March 14, 2014, at around 00:10 on March 14, 2014, Defendants assaulted “G” on the 3th floor of the F Building in Silung-si, by the following: (a) the police box of the Silung Police Station called up after receiving 112 reports while having been in dispute with each other due to the business owner and drinking value; (b) the Defendants attempted to arrest E as a flagrant offender in the crime of fraud; (c) Defendant A took her hand and shoulder by her hand; (d) Defendant B took her hand with an I’s shoulder, was pushed up, she was pushed up, sealed, and D was carried out by her hand with I’s shoulder.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with D and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers for criminal investigation and maintenance of order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Examination protocol of police suspect regarding D;

1. Each police statement made to J and I;

1. Application of CCTV video CDs, field photographs, and receipt-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Defendants of the relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment concerning criminal facts: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of fines);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendants’ quality of crime is inferior in that they assault and interfere with legitimate execution of duties by assaulting a police officer dispatched after receiving a report on the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, there is no record that the Defendants committed any other crime during the period of domestic stay, the employer has paid the drinking value in full to the relevant police officer, and the Defendants sought a preference for a considerable period of time; the Defendants were detained in the instant case; the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence leading up to the instant crime; and the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., were considered.