except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 21:20 on January 5, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sought a request from the police officer to voluntarily act on the road in front of the restaurant of “C” in the East Sea; (b) the Defendant reported the Defendant to 112 report to the above restaurant customers; (c) the police officer affiliated with the Dong Sea Police Station D police box in the Dong Sea Police Station; and (d) the police officer demanded from the guard F to voluntarily act on the charge of assaulting the Defendant’s female living together; and (c) the above police officer stated, “I am, I do not am. I do not am. I do so. I do not am. I do so. I do so. I do not am. I am. I am. I am. I do am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. am., I am. I am. am., I am am am in the Defendant’s house, and am.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to G, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the service log of a police box, the 112 reported case handling table, and the 112 patrol log;

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

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the nature of the defendant's assault and the degree of the assault committed by the defendant).