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

The Defendant stated in the facts charged on September 25, 2018 as “as of September 15, 2018,” but appears to be obvious that it is a clerical error, and there is no concern that the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense may not bring about a substantial disadvantage to the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right of defense (see, e.g., the Investigation Records 19-20 pages). From D located in the East Sea C around 01:15, the Defendant corrected ex officio

“A” shall, upon receiving a report from 112 and receiving a demand from F to F to get off the patrol car on the front of the H Mart located in G in the East Sea, enter the patrol car along with F in the circumstances belonging to E District of the East Sea Police Station E District and called up to F to the end of the patrol car in the East Sea.

“Along with the desire to walk,” and assaulted the F with the view to walking at several times due to the lush-ro.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A written statement;

1. A copy of the 112 reported case processing list, and the E global service site;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the observation of protection;