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

On August 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 11:40 on the road in front of Gangnam-si, and (b) 112 reported that the Defendant was fluoring a disturbance, such as gathering things on the road along the road; (c) heard a talk about the reported matters from an slope D belonging to the Gangseo-gu Police Station C District of the Gangseo-gu Police Station, which called the Defendant, called “I fluor that I will flue the front of the building in front of the building in front of the building in front of the building in which I flusssium and flussium,” and assaulted the face part of the above slope D, which was flusing the Defendant, once.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of the reported case by the above slope D 112.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, the details of the report of the 112 case, and the investigation report (the closure of a documentary evidence with accompanying the crime)

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the violation and the absence of a previous conviction or heavier than the suspension of execution);