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

On September 30, 2015, at around 23:10, the Defendant: (a) received 112 reports from the neighbors due to violent incidents arising from a dispute with the immediately preceding company’s clubs, and (b) sent to the site by E, police officers, and (c) was called to the site, and (d) was called to the site, the Defendant tried to f, along with the first responder of the 119 emergency squad, to f, with the Defendant’s 119 emergency squad, and the Defendant f, as well as the first responder of the 119 emergency squad, she tried to f, and walk the f, and walk the f, walking the f, walking the f, walking the f, walking the f, walking the f, walking the f, walking the f, and walking the f, walking the said f, and walking the f, walking the said fright box with the police officers assigned to the 3rd police officers, etc. (a police officers assigned to the 1).

As a result, the defendant assaulted police officers E and F, thereby hindering the legitimate execution of duties of the police officers in relation to the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Each statement;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

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;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: (a) the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is divided; (b) the fact that only one time has the history of fine; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the instant crime; and (d) the circumstances after the instant