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

At around 05:20 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant, at the convenience store located in the Pakistan B around 05:20 on May 22, 2014, sent to the police upon the 112 report, sent the police, expressed the police officer’s desire, refused to return home after shotping the patrol vehicle and went to the zone located in C at the time of sowing.

The Defendant: (a) took a walk in a smoking space in front of the D Zone; (b) took a walk to the fluence, and (c) took a walk to the police officers; and (d) solicited the Defendant to return home to the Defendant by the police officer, the fluor E belonging to the D District Unit of the Pakistan Police Station, where the 112 patrols were on duty; and (c) “ how the police officer will be on the fluor’s face at the fluor’s seat”; and (d) took the above E’s left blick at once on the floor, the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s suppression of crimes and the legitimate execution of duties

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of F’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Although the sentence of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was imposed as the same past force as the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Order to Attend the lecture, it is not good to commit the second crime. However, the sentence was imposed in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, due to the economic situation, age and excessiveness of the defendant, and that the case occurred.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.