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

On May 12, 2017, the Defendant was subject to the control of drinking on the ground that he driven a vehicle while drunk by police officers E and F, etc. belonging to the net police station before the “D,” which is located in Net City C, around 21:10 on May 12, 2017.

Defendant 1 responded to the foregoing E’s measurement of drinking, followed the E’s franchisation, and followed the E’s franchisation, and made the above F’s f to board the police vehicle to measure drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on drinking control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and witnessF;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of Chapter 1 video CDs;

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

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The main sentence of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Protective observation and community service order under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2), the main sentence of Article 59 (1) of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection;

1. The main text of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act) provides that the defendant shall submit arbitrarily the key of the vehicle to the defendant for the purpose of preventing traffic accidents prior to the measurement of drinking alcohol, etc.; the defendant takes a bath to E and takes fat, and the defendant requires the police officer F to board the police vehicle to take a alcohol test; the defendant first takes a bath to f when the defendant takes a bath, and the EF arrested the defendant as the current offender, the police officer E and F was legitimate to perform official duties for the control of drinking alcohol.

It is reasonable to view it.

At the time, police officers do not accept the defendant's and defense counsel's assertion that seem to dispute the legality of performing official duties.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows, and as well as the circumstances of the defendant.