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

On May 29, 2014, at around 23:23:23 on May 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a report of 112 violence from the time he/she was disputing the issue of money in the “C” restaurant located in B; and (b) was accompanied by the D police box, which is an assistant to which he/she belongs, and for the

At around 23:35 on the same day, the Defendant ceased to her own walk at the racing station square in Sung-dong, Sung-dong, Sim-si, and assaulted, “I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am am, I am am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the maintenance of police officers' order and legitimate execution of their duties on the investigation of the case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports, police boxes, service logs, and copies of public officials' certificates;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition by taking into account the following circumstances: first category of punishment of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [Scope of Recommendation] and the basic area (6-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence] the necessity of strict punishment of crimes of obstruction of official duties, other records and arguments, such as the defendant's age, happiness, family environment, and circumstances after committing criminal acts, etc.