However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On October 19, 2018, at around 23:05, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report from the above driver that “Negngngnn's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's driver's duty

However, on the ground that the Defendant: (a) was said to be a police officer to get off the taxi from the taxi, and (b) committed assault, such as: (c) the police officer, who was on the front of the taxi steering even if he was a police officer, f (57 years old); (d) the police officer, who was called together with the police officer, f (57 years old), f (e.g., the police officer), f (e., the police officer), f (e., the police officer), f (e., the police officer) f (e., the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the police officer) f (the

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the police officer on the handling of the 112 reported case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E and F;

1. B written statements;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a closure photograph of the video at the case site;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Taking into account the fact that there is no electricity of the same kind);