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

On May 8, 2018, the Defendant received the report of 112 that “I am, I am, I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. F am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. F am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of the law of the police statement protocol to F;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., reflective points and deposit of a certain amount for damaged police officers, etc.);