Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and for eight months, respectively.

, however, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A’s crime;

A. On September 28, 2015, around 03:15, the Defendant assaulted the victim’s face on the hand floor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the ground that the victim D(31 years of age) was dried in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on September 28, 2015.

B. The Defendant: (a) committed an assault on the date, time, and place specified in the foregoing paragraph; (b) and (c) committed an assault by the police officer F, the superintendent, G, and patrolman, who was a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangseo Police Station E District Unit of the Seoul Gangseo Police Station, to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender committing an assault; and (b) committed an assault on the left face of the said F on one occasion, such as wheeling the Defendant at one hand, and wheeling the two descendants of the said G.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer in uniform.

C. The Defendant damaged public goods at the time and place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (a) and at the same time and place, arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender in the crime of assault and resisting the defect that the Defendant attempted to board the patrol vehicle, and caused the lower seat of the patrol vehicle, which is a public goods, to have the 346,678 won of the repair cost.

2. The Defendant committed the crime of Defendant B, on the ground that he attempted to arrest Defendant A as a flagrant offender committing the crime of assault at the time and place described in the foregoing paragraph (a), as described in the foregoing paragraph (b), he saw the face of the above G, a police officer belonging to the Seoul Gangseo Police Station E District, as drinking, and assaulted Defendant B as a shot.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest of a flagrant offender by a police officer in uniform.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. Written statements prepared in D;

1. Written estimate;

1. Application of damaged photographs and photographs related to the obstruction of performance of official duties, and statutes governing patrol vehicles destruction;

1. Defendants of pertinent legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 260(1) and 141(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the commercial concurrence (defendant A);

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for each choice of punishment;