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

At around 18:30 on August 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received a general report on the landscape that a person who was unsatisfed on the street 26, 123 p.m. (123 p., J. 305, 305, J. 13, who was on the road in front of the Goyang Police Station, and received a recommendation to return home from C of the police officer belonging to the Goyangyang Police Station, who was on the 13th 13th f.m., who was on duty, was dispatched, and was asked to return home on two occasions on the f.m. patrolnet, the Defendant: (b) sound the f.m.; (c) f.; (d) f., the Defendant f.d., the Defendant f., and obstructed the execution of duties by a police officer who was in charge of the general affairs by assaulting, reporting the f.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police protocol law to C

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

1. The act of attempting to exercise public authority by assaulting a police officer who properly performs official duties on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is in need of strict punishment in light of the characteristics of the crime.

However, in full view of the fact that the defendant is divided by mistake and the degree of assault is relatively minor, there is no specific penalty power except for the fine of this kind, the age, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and all other sentencing conditions, the punishment shall be determined as per the order.