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

On August 28, 2014, at around 00:15, the Defendant reported to 112 on the ground that the bus he/she would walk at the bus stops located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Gangseo-gu, 987-6 was her matched.

The Defendant: (a) instructed the police officer, who was a police officer of the Seoul Gangseo-gu Police Station B District, to call a bus free stop transit by the police officer, because it is not a duty that can be handled by the police officer; and (b) instructed the police officer to call the bus free stop (120); (c) stated that the police officer “I am spppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by the police officers in relation to the 112 reported duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of C or D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the statutes governing the arrest of flagrant offenders;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes. Article 40 (Punishment of Punishment on Crimes of Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties against Heavy C, but Selection of Imprisonment);

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the suspended execution of sentence for the following reasons: (b) the confession of a criminal act and his mistake is divided in depth; (c) the punishment of a fine is ten years or more; and (d) the punishment of a fine is imposed; and (e) the motive