1. Around 22:40 on August 13, 2013, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.126%, and the Defendant driven a e-mail vehicle within approximately 6km from the Seo-gu Daejeon Seo-gu Seo-dong “Lambter” restaurant to the “D” restaurant located in Daejeon Sung-dong C.

2. On August 13, 2013, around 22:45, the obstruction of performance of official duties and the Defendant: (a) discovered from five police officers, such as GH, etc., on the street of the Daejeonsan Police Station F, GH, etc., at the front of the D cafeteria; (b) attempted to flee to D cafeteria; and (c) attempted to flee to D cafeteria, and (d) called “a siin siin si.”

The Defendant tried to flee to the victim H (the age of 34) after putting the victim H (the age of 34) her desire to “h,” and she saw the victim H’s chest part of the victim H’s chest, she satisfe by satisfing him/herself and satisfing him/her once, and she saw the victim H’s chest part of his/her chest part of the victim H by putting the police uniform over the victim H, thereby damaging the victim H beyond the floor for a week.

The Defendant continued to restrain the victim G(48 years of age) from 2 to 3 times due to his/her constant lecture, and led the victim G not to require approximately one week medical treatment.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties by police officers, and at the same time injured the victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the HGIJ of the witness;

1. An investigation report (referring to a report accompanied by a victim GH diagnosis report);

1. Inquiries, reply reports, and photographs; and

1. Records of modification, deletion and cancellation of a master dosimeter;

1. The report on results of the crackdown on drinking driving (17-2 amended and evidence list) and the ledger of the measurement of drinking alcohol;

1. First of all, the defendant's argument that the defendant's right to appoint a defense counsel at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender (Article 200-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act) constitutes illegally collected evidence since there is no notification of the right to appoint a defense counsel at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender.

According to each evidence in the judgment, the Defendant was on August 13, 2013.