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

On October 16, 2014, at around 23:10, the Defendant recommended the Defendant, who was a taxi passenger after receiving a report from a taxi engineer that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, to leave the c and scam on the c and scam in the cab, who continued to wear the c and scam in the cab. The Defendant took a serious bath to the above C, and cam the above C’s c’s scam on one occasion with his hand, and walked the above C’s right bridge on two occasions with his hand, and moved the above c’s right bridge to the front seat while moving to the above patrol box and getting on and off the scam, and took a serious bath to the above D’s head on one occasion, and interfere with the duty of the police officer on one occasion with the above D’s scambling of the head on one occasion due to the outbreak of his hair, and interfered with the duty of the above D’s lawful mobilization.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to C and D

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

1. The sentence shall be determined as ordered in light of the following facts: (a) there is no previous conviction for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act; (b) the crime of this case was committed in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol; (c) three young children; and (d) there seems to be no possibility of recommitting a crime closely with their family members; and (d) the confession of the crime of this case and reflection against their depth;