Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, from the date of the conclusion of the judgment, each of the above two years against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On February 16, 2020, at around 01:21, the Defendants were subject to the removal from H, a slope F, G and police officer belonging to the Incheon Gyeyang Police Station E-gu, Incheon Gyeyang Police Station E-gu, which was called up after receiving a report in relation to the daily activity in front of the “D” restaurant, which was connected to the Gyeyang-gu Incheon. Defendant A was sealed by: (a) having pushed the chest part of the above G while pushingping the arms and shakings; and (b) Defendant B, who intends to use the lock to arrest the above A as a flagrant offender, was cut off from the above H’s arms and the breast part of the above H, and then sealed the said F’s chest part of the said F, who continued to restrain it, and committed assault, such as selling the arms and skeing it.

As a result, the Defendants interfered with the police officers' legitimate performance of duties concerning the prevention of crimes or arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement made to F, G, and H;

1. Application of CCTV-cape photograph Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

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

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

1. Defendants subject to suspended execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “contributive circumstances”)

1. Defendants of a community service order: The act of obstructing the performance of official duties at the disadvantage of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that it could promote a light of legal order and public authority, and there is a need for strict punishment.

It is difficult to view that the degree of assault exercised by the Defendants is less light.

The damaged police officers want to strong punishment against the Defendants.

Defendant

A has been punished by a fine for an injury in 2016.

There is no record that the most advantageous defendants were punished in excess of the same crime or fine.

The mistake is recognized.

In addition, the sentencing shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and result of the crime, and the situation after the crime.