However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On July 21, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on July 21, 2017, the 23:35, and at the same time, the Defendant: (b) was requested to provide assistance by filing a report with 112 on the taxi operated by D, a taxi engineer, and did not talk with the destination; (c) the Defendant was requested to leave the said taxi at the site by 112; (d) the police officer of the police station Cdistrict belonging to the police station, the police officer, and the police officer, who was requested to leave the taxi at the site of the si; and (e) the Defendant was called “b) the cab’s body was pushed back to the said G while getting off the taxi at his seat; and (e) when the ice F was requested to get off the taxi from the said cab at his own seat, the Defendant went off the cab with his face of the above F.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of official duties of police officers regarding the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to F and H:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of D;

1. 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 Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution - Unfavorable circumstances: The nature of a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties by assaulting two police officers is not good. - The favorable circumstances: the defendant appears to reflect upon the recognition of all of the crimes, and there is no criminal record of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment;