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

On November 7, 2015, at around 0:17, the Defendant reported 112 reports (the purport that the Defendant assaults E) from his husband E in the “D cafeteria” located in the former Northwest-gun, the Defendant: (a) sent to the site of her husband after having received 112 reports from the Defendant’s husband E; (b) G police box guards dispatched to the site of her f patrole forest; and (c) Hank’s test, the Defendant reported that she was assaulted by her husband; and (d) G was prevented from doing so.

The head of Gu shall write down the flabage of G with his hand, 7,8 times in front and rear the flabage, and 20 times in front of and after the flab, and 3.

In spite of the warning “prison”, “prison” shall be discarded.

The sum of this subsection shall be discarded.

In addition, 10 minutes of 10 minutes of friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend friend.

Accordingly, the Defendant, as seen above, interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the dispatch of police officers according to his 112 report and the maintenance of public order by assault and intimidation against police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investigation reports and application of photographs related to dispatch to the site;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that a defendant who has no record of punishment heavier than a fine is repenting his/her mistake, and that G seems to be capable of recovering damage to a certain extent through the

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;