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.

On September 24, 2017, at around 00:40 on September 24, 2017, the Defendant, “C main points,” “A, under the influence of a drunk customer, was reported to the effect that he was locked, and F, recommended the Defendant to pay the food cost and return home to the Defendant, and the Defendant, “I am going to drink Habbb, I am son, I am to walk the E’s bridge on several occasions, and am to walk the face.”

After arresting a flagrant offender due to the obstruction of the performance of official duties, the defendant continued to break the body of the Inspector E in the course of boarding the patrol vehicle, and turned over the ground floor.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the police officer's legitimate execution of duties concerning suppression of crime and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement protocol with respect to G and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs damaged by police officers;

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 suspension of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the grounds that the defendant is against himself and has