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

At around 14:20 on February 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the Defendant’s demand that the victim E, a police official under safe guard of the Defendant, who was arrested on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act within the Manyang-si C and D Zone D area, will escape tobacco; (b) the Defendant may cut off the Defendant’s legitimate execution of public duties by walking the victim’s mother-and-child at one time through the victim’s left side, i.e., he can do so. the Defendant: (c) bottles, she can do so; (d) she can do so; (d) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; (e) she can do so; and (e) she can do so by walking on the left side of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (CCTV on the page);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [the scope of the sentencing guidelines] - The basic area of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the obstruction of performance of official duties/performance of official duties) (the decision of sentence] - The defendant recognizes and reflects the crimes.