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

On May 6, 2020, the Defendant: (a) received a report from a police officer slope C, D, and E belonging to the Jeju Police Station, Seopopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, on the 112-day Pream trucks located in Seopo-si, and “the male 2-math, 2-math, and 2-math, 200; and (b) dispatched from the reported person to the scene, “the person who was sent to the park, was used as a place of residence for more than a few months; (c) the Defendant heard the statement of “the person who was sent to the park”; and (d) the police officer was moved to the relevant place, and (d) whether it is why it is why it is ffort.

"........" He saw the sloping C’s timber and assaults his inner part on his right-hand side.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on 112 reporting management work.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Written statements of D;

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

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

1. In light of the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the circumstances leading up to the suspended sentence, the method of the commission of the crime, etc., the following factors are considered as follows: (a) the quality of the crime was inferior; (b) the criminal records of the same kind of fine were committed once; and (c) the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) the sentencing conditions