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 July 31, 2016, at around 03:40 on July 31, 2016, the Defendant was boarding a taxi at the front of the scar on the street in front of the trade name of the Sung-dong, and stopped at the entrance of the apartment at the time when the Defendant was the Defendant’s residence at the time of the racing, which is the Defendant’s dwelling place, and on the ground that the taxi driver seems to change the face of the taxi driver’s qualification certificate and the taxi driver’s face, the Defendant reported to the police on this reason.

Defendant 1: (a) the police box affiliated with the police box C of the racing police station, who was dispatched after receiving the above report at the above date and at the above location, compared the license and qualification certificate of the taxi engineer; and (b) explain that it is the same person; and (c) whether it appears to be the same in the snow.

Whether one does not want to do so immediately because he/she does not want to do so.

Recognizing that people's communication would be slicked only once, she would be slick, and she would be slicked with drinking, she would be slick, and she would be able to walk the victim's slick with the desire to “I see this dog, this other slick, and this other slick.”

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted D and E who is a police official, thereby neglecting the legitimate performance of public duties concerning police officer's duty of handling reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation;

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

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is that the defendant committed an assault against police officers in lawful execution of official duties, not that of the crime, but that of the defendant's violent crime.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects, the fact that the defendant agreed with D among the damaged police officers, the fact that there is no record of exceeding the fine, and all the sentencing factors shown in the public trial of this case.