1. Around November 26, 2014, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (MM520) driven a car at approximately 140 meters, around 140 meters, to the front road of the PP520 vehicle in front of the TM520 vehicle, in the state of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.248% at a 0.248% of the blood alcohol level. < Amended by Act No. 1283, Nov. 26, 2014>

2. The Defendant: (a) received 112 report in front of the midline General Social Welfare Center’s road on the front of the midline General Social Welfare Center; and (b) investigated the situation of the instant case by the circumstances where the branch guard affiliated with the branch guard of the branch police station affiliated with the branch police station who called to the site, and (c) prevented the Defendant from committing an assault by displaying the reporter’s drinking to F; and (d) expressed that “I fright fright fright fright fright fright fright,” and interfere with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties, i.e., the Defendant fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright fright.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement of the F, E, and G;

1. A written report from an employee of an employer;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning field photographs and CCTV closure photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the crime, Articles 148-2 (2) 1, 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of drinking and the choice of imprisonment), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of obstruction of performance of official duties and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant was committed and repented, and the defendant deposited 200,000 won to police officers E. However, even though the defendant scrapped his automobile, the crime of this case does not seem to be less that of obstructing the execution of official duties by driving under the influence of alcohol and assaulting the police officers, and the defendant was sentenced two times to imprisonment and the suspension of execution two times as a result of violating the Road Traffic Act, and one time of imprisonment with prison labor for violent crimes.