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

On May 17, 2014, at around 22:50, the Defendant assaulted the instant D’s body in both hands, and threatened the said D’s body with a threat that the Defendant was at the time when the Defendant was able to take measures to guide the Defendant’s name in a timely manner. On the same day, the police box affiliated with the said police box was used by the Defendant, i.e., the Defendant, who was aware of the fact that the Defendant was in a timely manner with a person who was unable to perform his/her duty and was in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties in the police box.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

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

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended sentence [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence] (decision of sentence), six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision, two years of suspended sentence (see, e., Supreme Court Decision, e., Supreme Court Decision,