A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) around 00:20 on November 22, 2014, at the K K K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K-based K.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the control of crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to E and H;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. In order to establish the legal order and order of the country of reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act and eradicate the light of public authority, there is a need to strictly punish the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties. However, there is no criminal record exceeding the same kind or fine, the defendant recognized the crime of this case as well as reflects his mistake, and other factors of sentencing such as the defendant’s age, environment, character and conduct, method of the crime of this case, etc., shall be determined as per the order.