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 July 30, 2017, around 22:16, the Defendant: (a) discovered the Defendant’s attachment of the Defendant who was sent to the scene after receiving a report of 112, such as domestic violence and the suspicion of toxic suicide of agrochemicals, etc. on the street front of the Dong-si, Dong-si, 2:67, Modern B police box of the king Police Station B, who was called to the scene, and tried to find out the Defendant’s attachment of agrochemicals, and to move to D; (b) threatened the Defendant with the Defendant’s desire to “a nearby shot, shot off, shot off, and shotch.” (c) 119 first aid crew members who continued to be dispatched to the site at the time of drinking to D with the face of A’s first aid crew member, and spit it, thereby obstructing the Defendant from performing his duties by committing assaulting C, thereby obstructing C’s legitimate execution of duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A E-document;

1. A report on investigation;

1. 112 Reporting case handling table;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. The sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the following sentencing is favorable) is due to the fact that: The sentencing is disadvantageous; in light of the background and content of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc.; the nature of the crime is not weak; the favorable circumstances are contrary to the mistake; and there was no previous conviction prior to the instant case;