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

1. Defluence;

A. From January 29, 2016, the Defendant: (a) had the victim B, a substitute driver, drive his/her own vehicle from the Sinsi-dong, Singu, Singu, Singu; (b) had the victim B, a substitute driver, drive his/her own vehicle to a destination in Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, Seoul; (c) did not inform the exact location; (d) caused the victim to hedge the surrounding area; and (d) had the victim drive the said vehicle to request the police to help the police, and led the victim to the zone located in Singu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul.

The Defendant, around January 29, 2016, on the street around the 23:10th day of the 2016 zone, was heard by the Defendant, on the ground that the victim did not go to his house in front of the said zone, and by the police officer, etc. of the said district, he shall do so to the victim. The Defendant shall do so, “I fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, fright, frighten, or well-known.”

The victim publicly insultingd the victim by referring to “”, etc.

B. On January 29, 2016, around 23:30, the Defendant: (a) was arrested as a flagrant offender of the offense of insult and was investigated in the said district; and (b) during the investigation conducted in the said district, the Defendant’s insult against the victim E, who is a public official of the police officer belonging to the said district, for the victim E, who is the victim of the said district, who is the police officer, of the said district; (c) whether the victim’s “a dog, chewing, fluor, fluor, fluor, fluor, and fluor, under a conspiracy with the victim’s agent; and

Now we need to keep the Bohman only.

In accordance with this principle, the victim openly insulting this gue, “,” etc., thereby insulting the victim.

2. Around January 29, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the performance of official duties by taking the Defendant’s desire to take the police officers at the above district, and obstructed the police officers’ legitimate performance of duties in relation to the prevention of crime, by taking one-time face part of E’s face as the head of the defect, to restrain the Defendant, who is a public official of the police officer belonging to the above district, from a police officer belonging to the said district.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for B and E;

1. Application of the D District Law 1.