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

At around 00:20 on June 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of alcohol at the front of the Do box in the Namyang-si, Namyang-si; (b) and (c) obstructed F’s back head on one occasion at the time, when the slopeF affiliated with the Do box in the Namyang-si Police Station, who was called upon the above report of the said E, was the Defendant, at the end of the said Do box, who was called “pump and Chewing impe” from the above cab to the Defendant, she was at the end of the F.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in relation to the handling of reports.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the police statement to F and E;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Suspension of Execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act is against the defendant, considering that the defendant seems to have committed