2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be postponed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. On May 20, 2015, the Defendant received a 112 report that “A driver was on duty without driving, even though a signal was changed,” from the 54 minute distance within the water area of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, the Defendant was required to take a alcohol test from the police box of the Gyeonggi-do Police Station C police station, which called “A driver was on duty at the driver’s seat,” and received a request for a alcohol test from D, slope E, and slopeF, etc.

The Defendant assaulted the said F’s neck by having breath of why she should take a sobreath test, and was tightly sealed twice, after having pushed the said D’s chest three times, followed the body, and caused the said E’s arms to force twice in two arms.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the drinking measurement.

2. On May 20, 2015, at around 00:15, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (recognition refusal) in three-lanes while driving the GKan-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-kn-k-kn-kn-k-k-kn-kn-k-kn-kn-k-kn-kn-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k-k

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. Each police statement made to D, E, F, and I;

3. Application of a copy of the usage register of a drinking-free measuring instrument, a circumstantial report on a drinking driver, and statutes governing exposed field photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act;

2. Abnormal concurrence, and the choice of a sentence, Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment.

3. The Criminal Act among concurrent crimes.