Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

Punishment of the crime

1. The Defendants, while drunk on January 11, 2013 at around 23:0, 2013, she saw the Defendants to drink in the “E” food house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, but the victim F, the president of the food house, had no place in the restaurant to the Defendants, and the Defendants f, once again talked, she was working in the restaurant, and the Defendants A was boomed with a beer with an empty beer room located at the food house entrance, and Defendant B was putting up a signboard of plastic material located in the front of the restaurant, and prevented the visitors from leaving the restaurant entrance.

As a result, Defendants conspired with and by force interfered with the victim's restaurant business.

2. Defendant A

A. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective weapon, etc.) and at the same time and place as the above paragraph (1), threatened the Victim F with a shoulderer disease, which is a dangerous object, by putting beer scambling on the floor and cutting the beer scambling on the floor, thereby threatening the Victim F.

Accordingly, the defendant carried dangerous objects and threatened the victim.

B. The Defendant continued to engage in the performance of official duties, at the same time and place as the above 112 report, expressed that Ha was expressed to the police officer belonging to the Suwon Police Station G District G District G District, and Ha was spiting spit in the head of the vehicle by walking bucks with the bucks, and spiting the bucks into the head of the vehicle, and I expressed a bath to the circumstances belonging to the same district, where she prevented the bucks from taking the bucks, and assaulted the police officer of the same district.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with police officers' legitimate public duties by assault.

3. Defendant B, at the same time and place as the above paragraph (1) above, went beyond the victim’s right to walk the bridge of the victimJ.

As a result, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, such as the closure of alley, which requires approximately six weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Defendant B’s part.