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

On December 20, 2014, at around 00:00, the Defendant: (a) sent a disturbance to sell tobacco only one cigarette, and (b) received a report from the police officer F, who was a police officer of the E box called “YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of public duties by police officers on the maintenance of public peace and order.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of the G’s written Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. On the grounds of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, inasmuch as the Defendant did not have any criminal record in addition to a fine, and the Defendant did not have any criminal record in that it interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by taking a bath and assault against the police officer who would be subject to the disturbance during the night, and thus, during the period of the period of the sentencing, such as the background and result of the instant crime, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after