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

On February 28, 2017, the Defendant, at around 23:10 on the front of the Busan Dong-gu, but did not compensate for the damages to the lower seat of the taxi that had been on board, and rather, went to the police box located in the Busan Dong-gu, Busan Dong-gu, which was called after receiving a 112 report, along with the background leading up to the police box belonging to the police box of the Busan Dong-gu, and the police box located in the F of the Busan Dong-gu.

At around 23:30 on the same day, the Defendant reported that the Defendant’s daily activities of the Defendant were to pay the money to the taxi engineer and to settle the trial expenses, and sought to kill the police officer affiliated with the above C police box, who avoided this, “I want to see that the frib frib frith, frib frib frib frib frith, frib frib frith frith frith frith frith frith f

“Abusing abusive language,” and assaulting the Defendant G during the course of talking with the taxi engineer at his/her face at one time with his/her own hand, thereby hindering the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties in relation to the prevention, suppression, and investigation of the crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of statutes on police statements made by G and H in each police state;

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

2. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which increases concurrent crimes;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (including any fact that there is no criminal history and any reflective fact);