Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months, and by a fine of four million won.

Defendant

B does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 03:20 on September 6, 2018, Defendant A received a 112 report and received a request from the police officer F of the Seoul Gangseonam Police Station Emba, who was called to the scene, to carry out the cryption with “D convenience store in Gangnam-gu Seoul” before “D convenience store in Gangnam-gu, Seoul”, Defendant A used the above F and G to carry out a cryption at front of the house. However, the Defendant assaulted the above F and G on one occasion the body parts of the above G, who were called to the cryption and the right crym of the above G, on the one hand, on the one hand, at around 03:45 on the same day, the Defendant continued to receive a 112 report and received a cryption from G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties and maintenance of order.

2. Defendant B, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph (1), the above F was submitted to A an identification card and obstructed both arms of the F, thereby obstructing them. The above F was “ why he was arrested as a flagrant offender committing the obstruction of performance of official duties” and the above F was assaulted in front and rear.

Defendant

B and his defense counsel asserted that, at the time of Defendant B’s mistake that police officers were to suppress A’s excessive suppression, the Defendant B only saw F’s arms to prevent the excessive suppression of A, and did not assault F in front and rear, as shown in the facts charged. However, according to the F, G’s police statements consistent with the facts charged, and the results of viewing video CD reproduction, etc., in which the circumstances preventing Defendant B from drinking-day F, which correspond to the facts charged, were taken, and the circumstances barring Defendant B from drinking-day F, the fact that Defendant B was in front and rear can be sufficiently recognized.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties, maintenance of order, and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s partial statement

1. Results of viewing video CD reproduction;

1.F.