except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Around October 21, 2018, the Defendant driven a D-do motor vehicle at a distance of about 13.23 km from the Do near the main point of “C” located in Gangseo-gun, Gangwon-gun, which is under the influence of alcohol by 0.132% of alcohol level around October 21, 2018, to the 13.23 km adjacent to the general disposal facility for the creative wastes located in the Chang-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.

2. The Defendant refused the performance of official duties, even though he received a report on October 21, 2018 and received the notification on October 21, 2018 from the E-district of the Pyeongtaek Police Station, the police officer G, and the Pyeongtaek Police Station’s demand for opening the door and leaving the vehicle, while driving a drinking and stopping on the said window, as stipulated in paragraph (1).

Accordingly, at around 22:07 on the same day, the above F destroyed the first window for the car of the upper mother's flag and opened the door, and the defendant raised a complaint against this, and assaulted the water collision factoring inside the vehicle of the above H.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the handling of 112 reports by police officers and the crackdown on drinking driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A H statement;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, for the crime;

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 Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act was that the defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, the circumstances that the defendant expressed that he does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by committing violence against the police officer performing official duties. The State's legal order and public authority are established.