However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On May 13, 2017, at around 21:45, the Defendant reported 112 on the decentralization-ro 94-21, a decentralization-ro, Kimhae-si, which read “a vehicle is traveling along the road,” and asked the Defendant to a slope B belonging to the police station in the Kim Sea, which was under the jurisdiction of the police station in the Kim Sea, and let the Defendant get out of the vehicle, and was suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol, and requested the Defendant to reduce the drinking level twice in his hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of reports and the measurement of drinking alcohol by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against B;

1. Each written statement C, D, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (No. 1 of the evidence list);

1. Relevant Article 136 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Based on the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing as set forth below), the sentencing conditions set forth in the instant case, such as the age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as set forth in the following circumstances, and the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court sentencing guidelines (the basic area of the sentencing guidelines set forth in Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution of Duties ( June - June 1): the scope of the recommended sentence set forth in the sentencing guidelines for the commission of sentencing of the Supreme Court.)

The favorable circumstances: The defendant finally was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a long time since he was sentenced to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2000, and there was no previous conviction, and the confession was made and his mistake was divided, and the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case is not much severe: It is necessary to establish the state's legal order and to punish the crime of interference with the execution of public duties in order to eradicate the light of the public authority.