However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 12, 2016, around 22:18, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol on the front of the “Silung-ro 58, Silung Public Health Center” before the “Silung-ro 58, the Defendant: (b) was moving the Defendant to India; (c) the police box B of the Gyeonggi Silung Police Station B, which was under the influence of influence on the road; and (d) the Defendant was prevented from moving the Defendant again on the road; and (c) the Defendant was able to move the Defendant again on the road without any reason.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties of police officers on relief work.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that some of the defendant's legal statements (the defendant was in a state of mental disorder by force at the time of the above crime).

According to the records, although the defendant was aware of drinking, the defendant had the ability to discern things or make a decision, but had the weak or lost capacity to discern things or make a decision.

As such, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the part of violence;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (Article 62 (1) of the same Act (Article 62 (1) of the same Act does not yet have any specific history of punishment, such as the fact that

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Social Service Order.