However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 27, 2016, the Defendant: (a) within Drata located in the wife population C on March 27, 2016; and (b) “A customer who satisfing in the remaining satisfy” after receiving a report from 112, the Defendant should not make the Defendant’s “humfing the drinking of any facility used by many people, making any satfy, or making any satfy for customers.”

“I wanting to hear the word “F at one time with the left side of F at one time.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties by police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. 112 Notification to a department related to the report of the case;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] interference with the performance of official duties in the basic area (from June to January 4) / [the decision of sentence] / The sentence shall be rendered as ordered in consideration of the circumstances of the crime committed by the defendant, the extent of violence committed by the defendant and interference with official duties due to such violence, the degree of interference with the defendant's performance of official duties, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's reflective attitude after the crime, and the relation of criminal records (no record of punishment for the crime committed in the same kind) and other various