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

On August 14, 2015, at around 22:55, the Defendant: (a) expressed the Defendant’s desire to “Isk, kis, fran, fran, fat, fat, fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat fat f

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Investigation report (suspects' criminal records and post-taking records);

1. 112 reported details and work days;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. It is so decided as per Disposition within the scope of one month to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor (the area of reduction of one kind of obstruction of performance of official duties, among crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties) under the sentencing guidelines for the reason that the suspended sentence is more than Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the confession of a crime, the mistake, the minor degree of violence, and the fact that the defendant does not have the same criminal record).