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.

At around 15:55 on July 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) sought a dispute with himself/herself; and (b) sought a finding that no contact was made by leaving around one month prior to leaving the house of D, the head of the Defendant located in C, thereby making it difficult for him/her to have his/her contact information known; and (c) caused a disturbance by destroying the sound and glass; and (d) upon receipt of 112 report, the Defendant “one male to avoid a disturbance” was sent from F of the police station E box affiliated with the police station E box called “A” and asked him/her to be asked for a “I am” and “I am going back to the escape of this Mara.”

“Along with sound, the chest of the above F was pushed down several times by hand, and assaulted, such as gathering and threatening the f’s face continuously after putting the said F’s face one time by drinking, and putting the f’s f’s face in the vicinity.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. 112 Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the table of reported case settlement;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200,000 won for damaged police officers, and considering the fact that there are no particular criminal records during the last ten years);