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

(e).

On June 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 23:23, Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 115-20, on the grounds that the Defendant informed the Defendant of the circumstances of the instant case by the victim D (35 years old) of the police officer of the Songpa Police Station, who was called by the Defendant upon receiving the Defendant’s notification of assaulting B, and prevented the Defendant; (b) on the ground that the Defendant stated that the Defendant “Is the Defendant as to whether I would be a police officer or not; (c) Is the taxi driver, she would be able to drink; and (d) I would like to take daily treatment as to whether Ispher, Isphere, Isphere, Isphere; and (d) Isphere Isphere, I would like to interfere with the legitimate performance of duties concerning the treatment of public security and reporting, and at the same time Isphere to undergo treatment for about 14 days.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning B and D;

1. B written statements;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

2. Article 40 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the choice of sentence, and the choice of imprisonment.

3. The portion of dismissing the public prosecution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, on June 20, 2013, the Defendant committed assault against the victim by stopping a private taxi operating in the front of the Songcheon-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, 115-20, on the ground that the victim stopped while getting a private taxi operating at the destination of the victim, and making it difficult for the victim to have the victim arrive at the destination, making the victim take a bath, and breathing the eroths.

2. The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the victim's express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to the records of this case, the victim B withdraws his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case.