Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, this judgment shall be given to Defendant B for a period of two years from the date of confirmation of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant B, around 04:00 on November 30, 2014, in front of the previous D Building during the Ansan-si, Defendant B continuously demanded a police officer affiliated with the Escopic police station to detect the vehicles of Defendant B and to leave the vehicle to Defendant B during the safe period of his dispatch after receiving a report of 112, but Defendant B continued to demand a police officer affiliated with the Escopic police station to find out the vehicles of Defendant B and to leave the vehicle to Defendant B, while Defendant A was waiting for a male-friendly job-taking, after having arrived at the scene, Defendant B was waiting for a male-friendly job-taking, left the front locker of the vehicle and opened the door, and obstructed police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the crackdown on drinking Control.

2. Defendant A, at the same time, at a place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, and at the same time and at the same time as referred to in the preceding paragraph, Defendant A demanded that the police officer affiliated with the police station EM box request the Defendant B to take a sobage test by leaving the vehicle on the vehicle for female-friendly delivery, and prevents the vehicle and the police officer from approaching the vehicle

While the police station guards, G and slope H explained that they should take a drinking test against Defendant B during the course of their dispatch after receiving a request for support and explained that they should do so, and requested cooperation, Defendant B told Defendant B that “I would tell that they had been making a self-driving rather than driving,” and told H that “I would have to do so. I would have to do so. I would have to say that I would have to do so,” and that “I would have to do so, I would have to say that I would have to do so, and even if G would have prevented police officials from performing their legitimate duties concerning the handling of reports and the control of drinking.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to video CDs);

1. The Defendants: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the choice of punishment;

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

1. The Defendants’ choice of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor

1. Suspension of execution;