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

At around 00:30 on August 25, 2012, the Defendant informed the Defendant that F may be arrested as an insulting offense by taking a bath, such as “F’s face at one time, francing fat, and francing fat, called “F,” which was called “F,” which was called “F,” and called “F,” who was called “F,” and called “F,” who was promoted to F when she was francing francing fat, and promoted to Francing fat,” and who was called “F, if he was arrested as an insulting offense,” the Defendant interfered with the lawful performance of duties by reporting f’s f’s face at one time with f’s hand and francing bat, and performing his duties.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness G and F;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 136 of the Election of Imprisonment;

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

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, etc., argues that the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act was merely F’s bather in the process of resisting the illegal arrest and assault of F, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense.

However, the following circumstances, which can be comprehensively acknowledged by taking account of the above evidence, i.e., ① at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant reported the disturbance to 112 by avoiding the disturbance in front of the said female house; ② The F called the Defendant by sending the disturbance to the police uniform upon receiving 112 report; ③ The Defendant saw the F’s face while taking a serious bath to the F, and dump with f’s hand.