Defendant

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

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

1. On January 12, 2016, Defendant A, at around 21:50, 2016, deemed that he drinks with B in the “E” Ga, “E” located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, and without any special reason, Defendant F (V, 50 years of age) of the victim F, who is the main owner of the business, “YY YY YY YY YY YY YYY YYYY YYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYYYYY YYYYYYY YYYYY YYYYYY YYYY YY

2. On January 12, 2016, at the place indicated in paragraph (1) around 22:37, the Defendant arrested a private victim H (44 tax) of G District in the Ulsan-gu Police Station G District of the Ulsan-gu Police Station G District and called out after receiving a report of 112 due to the above interference with the Defendant’s above interference with the Defendant’s business, and attempted to accompany the Defendant by committing a flagrant offender with the crime of interference with the Defendant’s business. The Defendant “Ie this weather year, Nar Ga Ga Ga Ga Ga,” and this sonhh ki.

The term "the victim" refers to "the victim's arms and bats bat, and assaults the victim by bating her face with hand bats twice.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the suppression and investigation of the victim's crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to F and H;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

A. Defendant A: Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant B: Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse (Defendant A);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 60(3) of the Juvenile Act

1. Defendant B of the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant A of the Criminal Procedure Act) and the history of the judgment of suspension of execution due to the same obstruction of performance of official duties, as well as the history of the judgment of suspension of execution, despite a large number of criminal records of violence, again lead to the instant crime; and the degree and specific contents of the assault against the police officer may be deemed to be somewhat minor

It cannot be seen, however, that the defendant is against the defendant, that the criminal record of the obstruction of the execution of official duties was about 20 years, and that the person was in the influence of alcohol and commits a contingent crime.