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

On June 17, 2018, at around 00:57, the Defendant: (a) received a 112 report to the effect that “Isman(B),” as the species 159 of Jongno-gu Seoul, the Defendant sent to the scene, sent a warning to the police officer D, who was a police officer assigned to the Seoul Sejong Police Station C police box, that I would not have access to B; and (b) prevented the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant: (c) “Isn’t the police dog in mind if Isn’t mari math, I would like to see why Is the police dog in mind; (d) why Isn’s maths were raised, why Is math, and why Isn’s maths were in a flagrant act; and (d) assaulted by both hands.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported duties and prevention, suppression and investigation of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Each face photograph;

1. Application of the investigation report (the confirmation of CCTV in front of the out-of-door, 7th e.g., e., optical wave calendar);

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for the reason that Article 62(1) (i.e., confession and the degree of violence is not severe) of the Criminal Act is in excess of the suspended sentence;