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

On September 10, 2015, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) expressed, without any justifiable reason, the victim B of the police station affiliated with the police station, who was under the control of drunk driving, that “I am in the market where I am in the region and died at the time I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.). I am spath of the police officer’s face. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am the police officer’s face.

As a result, the defendant added approximately two weeks of treatment to the above police officers, such as gymnasium and gymnasium, and at the same time interfered with the legitimate execution of police officers' duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning B;

1. A written statement of C and D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;