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

1. 도로교통법위반(음주측정거부) 피고인은 2015. 2. 22. 21:10경 술에 취하여 창원시 마산합포구 진북면 예곡리 부근 자동차전용도로 갓길에 C 포터2 화물자동차의 시동을 켠 채 정차해 두고 잠을 자던 중, 위 화물자동차가 비틀거리며 진행하여 클랙슨을 울리자 갓길에 세운 사실이 있어 음주운전이 의심된다는 112신고를 받고 현장에 출동한 마산중부경찰서 D파출소 소속 경위 E로부터 피고인에게서 술 냄새가 나고 얼굴색이 붉은 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 D파출소로 임의동행한 다음 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았다.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at intervals of ten minutes from 21:30 to 21:50 on the same day, did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement without any justifiable reason by taking into consideration the demand of the above police officer for alcohol measurement at intervals of ten minutes.

2. On February 22, 2015, the Defendant assaulted the police officer’s left side of the instant police officer on one occasion on the following grounds: (a) around February 22, 2015: (b) the police officer E, a police officer wearing a uniform, required to take a drinking test as above; (c) “I see this dog, she died of her neck, and her neck,” and (d) assaulted the police officer at one time on the floor of the instant police officer’s hand.

As above, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the measurement of drinking alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of E prepared by the police;

1. Investigation report (with respect to refusal of measurement);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (in cases of attaching a field vehicle and a site vehicle or a site for refusing measurement of drinking;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of refusal of measurement), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 136 (1) of the same Act concerning the punishment of the crime, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor.