However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. From around 00:40 on May 16, 2019 to 01:01 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) ordered the victim’s “D” main points of the victim’s operation in Nam-gu, Nam-gu; and (b) heard the horses that the victim C would have calculated the drinking value; (c) did not sound the victim C; and (d) did not call the victim’s bitch, i.e., a bitch, a bitch of a bitch of a bitch of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit of a bit

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the victim's main business by force.

2. On May 16, 201, at around 01:01, the Defendant: (a) served as the main point of “D’s operation” located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu; (b) served as the police station affiliated with the same police box; and (c) served as a police officer of the same police box, “from G to a police officer affiliated with the same police box,” the Defendant saw the horse to go to the house, and carried the f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s face; and (d) served as a f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s f’s h

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases.

3. Around 01:01 on May 16, 201, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 at the main points of the “D’s operation” located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu; and (b) was asked questions about personal information from G police officers belonging to the same police box, such as F in charge of the situation where the victims were dispatched to the scene; (c) while the C and the under-name customers operating the said D are heard, they would be called “the victim F” to have been sent to the victim F at this time, and “the victim G should have been sent to the victim.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to G, F, and C;

1. G and F, respectively.