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

At around 15:50 on August 27, 2016, the Defendant caused a traffic accident, which is shocking behind the E-Poter vehicle driven by D while driving C C in front of the Busan East-gu, Busan-gu, which is owned by the Defendant.

At around 16:00 on the same day, the Defendant, who entered the Busan Dongdong Police Station G district located in the Busan Dongdong-gu, in order to handle the said traffic accident, she saw that she would see that she would have her will to “ she will do so, she will do so,” and when she was removed from the police officer, who was in the said G district, the police officer in the said G district, she would have her desire to her " she will do not her her her and her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning traffic accident handling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. Relevant Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of criminal punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act / [Scope of Recommendation] The basic area (six months to one year and four months) of the obstruction of performance of official duties (the person who has been specially punished) (the decision of sentence / the decision of sentence ] without the same power, the serious reflective nature, etc.