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 February 1, 2016, at around 20:55, the Defendant: (a) visited the said police box along with the above D on the day when he was aboard a cab operated by D, which became a matter of charges, and (b) was able to report damage to the police officer F who belongs to the said police box; (c) on February 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) visited the said police box; and (d) visited the said F on the day when the Defendant was able to report damage to the police officer F who belongs to the said police box; (c)

“Along with sound, I tried to see the face of the said F with the hand floor, and tried to see the face of the said G with the hand floor of the said box attached to the said box, and attempted to see the face of the said G with the hand floor of the said box, and continued to commit assault by assaulting the balle of the said G with the hand, such as salkeing the bals of the said G, thereby obstructing the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties in relation to the police’s internal duties

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement in each police statement with respect to G and F;

1. Description in D's self-written statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing CCTV photographs;

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. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (including the circumstances favorable to the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than one month but not more than five years;

2. The scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines (the sentencing guidelines shall not apply because each interference with the performance of official duties is related to the win-win concurrent crimes) / [decision on the types of the sentencing guidelines] / crime obstructing the performance of official duties, and no one (Interference with the performance of official duties) from among interference with the performance of official duties [the scope of the recommended punishment] / imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, but not more

3. Determination of sentence: nine months of imprisonment with prison labor, which prevents a police officer from performing his/her duties by exercising violence against a police officer who performs his/her duties in the period of suspension of execution of his/her duties; the police officer F wanted to punish a defendant; the defendant has three times of punishment for the same crime (one time of suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor and two times of fine) and eight times of imprisonment with prison labor (one time of suspension of execution of imprisonment with prison labor and one fine);