Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 2,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

1. From March 28, 2015, the Defendants: (a) around 23:20 on March 28, 2015, the Defendants: (b) obstructed the victim’s bar business business for about 30 minutes, including, but not limited to, the victim E in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; (c) dumping the entrance of the victim E to enter the place of drinking at a singing shop managed by the victim E in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul; and (d) duming the Defendants to “hing, hinging,” and duming the Defendants

2. When Defendant B, at the time and place indicated in the preceding paragraph, was subject to a removal from H (31) who was a policeman belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station G District, which was called out after receiving a report of 112 while avoiding disturbance as described in the preceding paragraph, Defendant B committed assaulting the chest of the said H on one occasion by taking a bath that “this spawn must be carried out,” while taking the bath that “this spawn should be carried out.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the performance of duties by police officers on the maintenance of order and crime control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Legal testimony of witness E;

1. Prosecutorial suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. E. Application of each police protocol to H;

1. Relevant statutory provisions concerning criminal facts and the Defendants’ interference with the duties of the Defendants: Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act and contact with the obstruction of performance of official duties by Defendant B of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fines) Article 30 of the Criminal Act: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Defendant B);

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

1. The cases where the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which led to the obstruction of the performance of official duties by police officers, led to the obstruction of the execution of official duties of the sentencing of the above Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, are the criminal liability. However, the defendants are the first offender who did not have a criminal record, and the crimes committed under the influence of alcohol to the extent that they are unable to memory, and the fact that the defendants committed the crime is divided by the crime, the obstruction of official duties, and the fact that they reached an agreement with the actual victim