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

On October 26, 2014, at around 18:00, the Defendant: (a) committed an assault against D, who explained the procedures related to the result of the treatment of civil petitions, such as “satisf and police officers only receive taxes; and (b) obstructed police officers’ legitimate performance of their official duties by assaulting D’s ebbbbage, satfls, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Photographs of crimes;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (to attach sound records of a police box and CCTV images of a police box);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] Where the degree of violence, intimidation, and deceptive scheme is insignificant in the area of mitigation (one to eight months) of the area of obstruction of performance of official duties (special mitigations), [decision of sentence] the types of force used for a crime committed by a person who has lost his/her ability under the state of voluntary restraint is not significant, and the punishment is determined within the scope of recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines, taking into account the circumstances, such as the punishment and the fact that he/she has no criminal record of the same kind, etc.