However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 12, 2018, at around 23:40 on May 12, 2018, the Defendant: (a) sought a delivery box for the reason that the Defendant did not properly resolve the civil petitions reported by the Defendant; and (b) sought a delivery box for the reason that the Defendant did not properly resolve the civil petitions reported by the Defendant; and (c) even though the Defendant instructed the Defendant to the extent that the Defendant was instructed by the police box for whom the Defendant was assigned to the police box, the Defendant “packer” was not a hicker.

Before taking a bath that “I shall do not fring, I shall do so,” it obstructed a police official’s legitimate performance of duty by taking two times the chest part of the horse D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the defendant reflects his fault in depth, the defendant has no criminal record, the degree of violence exercised to police officers, and all of the sentencing conditions under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the records, shall be determined as the same as the order.