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

At around 20:45 on 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was under the influence of the Defendant’s wife C’s vehicle, who driven prior to the Defendant’s boarding of the vehicle, and (b) was under the control by the police officer E belonging to the police station of the Cheongju-gu Police Station, and the patrol by the police officer on the ground that the Defendant’s vehicle driven prior to the Defendant’s driving of the vehicle violated the signal; (c) the Defendant was under the control by the police officer to check the vehicle of the above C, following the Defendant’s vehicle, and then the police officer was under the control of the Defendant’s hand, and the Defendant was under the influence of the signal at the end of the stop, and the Defendant was under the influence of the Defendant’s drinking, and (d) the Defendant tried to take the Defendant’s drinking alcohol, and (d) tried to keep the Defendant’s drinking back to the Defendant’s drinking, and (e) tried to keep the Defendant’s drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning traffic control between E and F, who is a police officer.

Summary of Evidence

Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the Defendant’s legal witness F, E’s legal statement F, police statement protocol CDs against E, photographic statute

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of sentence of alternative imprisonment;

4. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution.

5. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act [the scope of recommendation] The basic area (from June to one year and six months) of Class 1 (Interference with the performance of official duties and coercion of official duties) [the decision of sentence] of the Defendant, on the ground that police officers conducted a serious bath to police officers, breath and interfered with police officers’ performance of official duties, on the ground that police officers were suspected of drinking driving at the train while under the influence of alcohol and under the influence of alcohol.