A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for four months.

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.

Punishment of the crime

At around 22:50 on September 13, 2017, the Defendant: (a) expressed his desire to “this son, dog, and son and policeman called this son’s farb bitch far farb far farb far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far bar far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far far b far far far far h far)”

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties on the maintenance of public peace and order of police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C or D;

1. E statements;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs by cutting a fluor, fluore image;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Despite the fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was sentenced to a fine due to interference with the execution of official duties of the accused, the case is committed, but it is against the degree of assault and is not committed again;

consideration of the fact that the