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

On March 1, 2014, at around 00:08, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the circumstances of the instant case at the D main station operated by Ulsan-gu, U.S., U.S., and reported that he did not pay the drinking value at the D main station operated by C; (b) while C was sent to the scene, C took the face of C’s report to the police; and (c) the said F was to restrain the Defendant and arrest the Defendant in the act of assault; and (d) the police officers in mobilization, such as the above F, “this w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning C and F;

1. Application of field photographs and investigation reporting Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Social Service Order [Scope of Recommendation] The consideration of the fact that many criminal records have been committed more than 10 times (three times of imprisonment among the criminal records) while the basic area (six months to one year and four months) of obstruction of performance of official duties (decision of sentence] (decision of suspension of performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) was committed.