except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

At around 02:10 on December 21, 2014, the Defendant, at the main point of “C” located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, and at the 112 reported telephone, was subject to the Defendant’s disturbance from the police officer E belonging to the Kumi Police Station D District of the Kumi Police Station called “YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEE, and caused the Defendant to interfere with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the 112 reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the statutes governing police officers' work logs and field photographs;

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

2. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution [Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties] that there is no basic area (6 to 1 year and 4 months) [special person] [decision of sentence] (Article 6-1 of the Act on the Suspension of Performance of Official Duties] (Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Official Duties

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The summary of the facts charged was assaulted by the Defendant on December 21, 2014 at the main point of “C” located in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si B, and on the hand, at the end of the victim F, who was suffering from disturbance with drinking alcohol, the victim F that “the alcohol price is paid and the bals are paid.”

2. We examine the judgment. This part of the facts charged is an offense falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act.

According to the records of this case, it is recognized that the victim expressed his wish not to punish the defendant under the agreement with the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part is subject to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.