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

On December 21, 2012, at around 00:25, the Defendant: (a) was arrested as a flagrant offender under suspicion of interference with business; (b) “When the police officer in the B Area gets fright to handle the instant case,” the Defendant was fluored with sound, and was fluored with a view to fluoring the Defendant out of the B Area, the Defendant was fluoring the chest part of the said D’s chest part on one hand.

The Defendant continued to use the aforementioned D’s body body, tightly sealed the parts of the above D’s body, and knife the belt, etc. in order to transport the D’s body to the Pyeongtaek Police Station.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the arrest and escort of police officers in the act of committing a crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Application of D’s protocol of statement to the police;

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

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the facts that the defendant led to the crime and reflects the depth of the crime, that there is no significant damage from the crime committed by the defendant, that the wife and children should be supported,