A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 01:20 on July 21, 2014, the Defendant took a bath to D, stating that “When the taxi engineer reported that he drinks alcohol, he or she would have done so, he or she or she would have done so.” D, who is following him or her in India at the above global area India, said D, “I am or would have done so.” D, who said D, “I am or frien, I am or frien, I am or frien, I am.” The Defendant said D, “I am or frien, I am, I am.” The Defendant saw D, “I am or frien, I am, I am, am,” and said D, “I am or frien, I am, I am, am, ambling, amben.”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention, suppression and investigation of police officers' crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement 1 of the defendant in court, and interrogation protocol of the defendant by prosecution;

1. Application of the police statement law to D;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime. Article 136 (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

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