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

1. On June 26, 2016, the Defendant driving a vehicle B U.S. under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.168%, while under the influence of alcohol, on the road in the Incheon direction-setting in the 538-7 U.S. Won-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on June 16, 2016.

2. The Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties, at the same time and place as Paragraph 1, and at the same time and place as that of Paragraph 1, “the vehicle is on the Korean-do one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one-way one

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. The circumstantial report of the driver employed at the main place;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police statements made to D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties);

1. Selection of each sentence of imprisonment;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act for the suspended sentence are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was high at the time of driving the instant drinking; (b) the Defendant was sentenced to a fine several times due to drinking or commission of violence; (c) the Defendant did not endeavor to recover damage inflicted on the police officer; and (d) the degree of assault inflicted on the police officer is not much serious; (d) there was no history of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment; and (e) there was no history of having been sentenced to a suspended sentence or a heavier punishment; and (e) there was a reflection of one’s wrongness.