However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 9, 2016, at around 05:40, the Defendant: (a) was drunkly driven by “Dju” operated by “C” located in Ulsan-gu B, Ulsan-gu; (b) was able to return home from F belonging to the Ulsan-nam Police Station E district unit of the Ulsan-nam Police Station E district; and (c) took a bath in a large voice, and was able to do so, the Defendant obstructed the Defendant’s legitimate execution of duties by “F” on the handling of 112 Report.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement;

1. Photographs;

1. Each investigation report and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to report the results of investigation;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Reasons for the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Execution [Scope of Recommendation] There is no basic area (6-1-1-4 months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (6-6 months to 1-4 months) (a special person) (a decision of sentence] under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Code (a decision of sentence] under consideration of the details and contents of the crime committed by the defendant