However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On June 21, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 10:10 on June 21, 2016, was drunk in the Busan B B’s parking lot; (b) and (c) the circumstances in which the Plaintiff was working for the Busan B’s Dong Police Station D District, which was called out after receiving a report from 112.

Extraordinary도요 on the house.

“Chewing” to the above E, which may occur

f. A. The police f.m. Madar f.m. Madar f.m. b. Madar f.m. Madar f.m., Madar f.m., Madar f.m.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reported cases and the prevention and suppression of crimes in the above E, the police officer.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol with respect to E;

1. Application of damaged photographs and investigative reports (in cases of dispatch to the scene) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The execution of a sentence shall be suspended by taking into account the following factors: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution of sentence [the scope of recommendation]; (b) the basic area (from June to one year and four months) (the person who is subject to special sentencing] (the decision of sentence]; (c) the first offender; (d) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties; and (d) the degree of interference with the performance of official duties; and (e) the fact that it is against