Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant A and B, respectively, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

1. The Defendants’ joint crime committed on June 20, 2016, and around 22:35, 2016, on the ground that, under the influence of alcohol, the Defendants got 112 reported that the building entrance is obstructed, openly hump, and hump and hump I got out of the building entrance of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, with the content that “the main hump hump is being carried out by the main hump. and hump I got out of the building entrance.”

“Along with the Defendant’s sound, the Defendants were boomed by the Defendant’s chests of the police officer H in hand, and Defendant A was shicked up to 2 to 3 times by hand on the roadside of the said H. Defendant C with sound that Defendant A “ promptly escaped,” and plucked up the arms of the said H, and Defendant B was taken by the police officer as a portable steering session (a manual inquiry, photographing, and an investigation device with the function of telephone) with the Defendant’s assault against the police officer H, and the police officer’s portable steering session was broken up to the said I.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to assault the above police officers and interfere with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case.

2. 피고인 B 피고인은 제 1 항과 같은 일시장소에서, 위와 같이 경찰관 I로부터 그 휴대용 조 회기를 잡아챈 다음 길바닥에 내던져 수리비 101,000원 상당이 들도록 깨뜨렸다.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the goods used by public offices.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Entry of the Defendants in part of the protocol concerning the interrogation of suspects in each prosecutor's office

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Video CDs;

1. The Defendants’ assertion on the investigation report (Attachment of CtV video materials and shotos) (Attachment of ctv video materials and shotos) are all determined by the Defendants, and the situation where they were drunked at the time of the instant case does not adequately

argument at the time of its argument.