Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 11:55 on December 4, 2018, Defendant B, on the ground that he was forced to commit his act from F, a police officer of the Seoul East-gu Police Station Estation, who was called out after receiving a 112 report that “A person operating a store” from D on the street in front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) stated that “I will see why we will come to us only, why we would see, why you would see, why you would see, why you would see, and why you would see, why you would see, I would like to say, “I would like to commit a crime of obstruction of the performance of official duties”; and (b) received a notice from F that he would be punished as a part of F on drinking once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. Defendant A reported that he was arrested by B on the grounds as stated in paragraph (1), at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), and notified F, a police officer affiliated with the Seoul East Police Station Estation, that he was punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties, by neglecting F’s chest by hand and neglecting F’s chest by hand, even though he was notified by F that he could be punished for the obstruction of performance of official duties.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F and D (F’s statement is consistent and concrete in the main part from the first statement made by an investigative agency to the present court. It is consistent with the facts confirmed through fieldCCTV image, and is also inconsistent with D’s statement. Therefore, it is not contradictory to D’s statement. Accordingly, even though D’s statement also is somewhat complicated upon the passage of time, it is consistent with the main part from the time of the initial statement made by the investigative agency to the present court, and thus, is consistent with this part).

1. Application of the statutes governing field CCTV images and additional CCTV images;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the selection of punishment;