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

On February 26, 2016, at around 00:35, the Defendant was notified of the summary of the suspected crime, the right to appoint a defense counsel, the right to request for an arrest and arrest, and the right to request an arrest and arrest and arrest, and was arrested as the current criminal.

In the process of arresting the above defendant in the act of committing the crime, the police officers of the above mobilization led the defendant to use the locks after breaking the defendant.

The Defendant, as seen above, was under pressured by police officers and went beyond the road, had the face that requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment to the victim by walking at one time from the right eye of the victim C in order to cause the Defendant and set up.

As a result, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on arrest of flagrant offenders, and at the same time injured the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as photographic and diagnosis of a victim injured by a family member;

1. Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects his depth, the contingency crime in the course of detention, and the fact that there is no previous conviction exceeding the fine).