Defendant

A Imprisonment for eight months, each of the defendants B and C shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that from the date of this judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On May 11, 2014, the Defendants: (a) on the front road of Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, 02:03, the Defendants: (b) reported 112 to the effect that “Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to H, J and I;

1. Defendants of relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 136(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial concurrent defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act

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

1. Defendants on probation: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Defendants of probation and community service order: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;