beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.
However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. Defendant A’s violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. ( native 7, 2015 highest 3804) [Defendant A is not a narcotics handler.]
A. Defendant A is not disadvantageous to Defendant A’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense at the Ecomel room located at the Ecom room located at the time of his own city around February 2015, 2015, and is not at a disadvantage from F to Defendant’s exercise of the Defendant’s right to defense, which is a local mental medicine (i.e., one philopon; hereinafter referred to as “philopon”), and thus, criminal facts should be recognized without the amendment of the indictment.
1g of approximately 0.1 grams, dump dump, dump, dump, dump, dilution with water and injection with Defendant’s arms, giving and receiving and administering dumpphones.
B. On March 20, 2015, Defendant A received and administered philophones by dilution them with water at H telephones located in G at the Government-si around 16:00 on March 20, 2015, at the H telephones located in G, and by dilution them with water from I without compensation.
2. The Defendants interfered with the Defendants’ performance of their official duties [2016 senior 794] around December 15, 2015, the Defendants were subject to a demand for presentation of identification cards by controlling L from the circumstances belonging to the K of the Gu Police Station while crossinging without permission, and Defendant A was in line with the above A’s behavior, taking advantage of his desire to take the above police officer’s fingers, plucking the above police officer’s fingers, plicking the spath, and spathing the spath, getting off the police officer’s fingers, and was arrested a flagrant offender for interference with the performance of official duties, and as the above police officer was arrested, Defendant A was under arresting the police officer for committing the same act as the above police officer.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to obstruct the police officer's unauthorized crossing control and arrest of flagrant offenders.
Summary of Evidence
(b).