공무집행방해등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and fine for negligence of 7,000,000 won.
The defendant does not pay the above fine.
Punishment of the crime
1. On April 29, 2015, the Defendant was asked from around 16:49 to around 17:14 of the same day to comply with a drinking test by a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, even though there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, and reding on the face, from the border E belonging to the police station D District of the Speaker Police Station D District located in the House of the Speaker Police Station located in the House of the Speaker Police Station located in 1171, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, even though he/she was asked from around 16:49 to around 17:14 of the same day.
2. 공무집행방해 피고인은 2015. 4. 29. 16:49경 의정부시 C빌라 앞 노상에서 의정부경찰서 D지구대 소속 경찰관 경사 F와 순경 G이 피고인에게 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구한다는 이유로, 위 경찰관 F에게 “계급장 띠고 맞짱 한번 뜨자, 짭새 새끼가 까불어, 죽여버린다”고 소리를 지르면서 위 경찰관 F의 가슴부위를 손바닥으로 밀치고 위 경찰관 F의 멱살을 양손으로 잡아 흔들고, 위 경찰관 G의 가슴부위를 손으로 밀쳤다.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on drinking measurement work.
Summary of Evidence
1. Legal statement of the witness H;
1. Each police statement made to H and F;
1. Each written statement of E and G;
1. A copy of a police officer's photograph, a drinking measuring instrument to be used, and a list of 112 reported cases;
1. Report on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, and notification on the result of the crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol [the defendant and his defense counsel requested a alcohol measurement by the police officer despite the absence of reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and such a demand for measurement of alcohol does not constitute legitimate performance by the police officer, so the defendant's act as stated in the judgment of the court below is in violation of the Road Traffic Act (in refusal of the