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

1. On March 20, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties is a police officer who is a police officer in charge of the police box, who was called out after receiving a report from 112, to the police officer in charge of the police box, who was called up for the police officer in charge of the police box of the police box of the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station of the police station.

C. On the other hand, I continue to take a bath, flag, and quid pro quo, “Astruh,” and continued to have a front door of the vehicle followed by the next door of the vehicle.

F was assaulted on the upper side and the right bridge of F.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the handling of 112 reported cases.

2. On March 21, 2018, at around 00:35, the Defendant who damaged public goods was arrested as a flagrant offender of the crime of interference with the performance of official duties, as described in paragraph 1, and was transferred to the police box of the Gyeongbuk Racing Police Station located in Sejong-si on March 21, 2018, the Defendant damaged the repair cost by causing the 122,000 won of the repair cost, by taking two parts of the heating conditioners attached to the wall on the ground that the chemical became inflammable.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the use of goods by public offices, thereby harming their utility.

3. On March 20, 2018, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to the following: (a) around 23:50 on the road in front of a D logistics warehouse located in PP on March 20, 2018; (b) the Defendant was seated on the rear seat of the HH Kan-ray vehicle in a trial zone; (c) the Defendant was smelled by drinking, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to the witness I’s statement that the Defendant driven a motor vehicle while driving the motor vehicle.

There are reasonable grounds to determine a person, and even if he/she received a request from around 00:43 on March 21, 2018 to around 01:5, to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the breath in a breath method at the police box of the Gyeongbuk Racing and Police Station Embling about 1:12 minutes, on three occasions, from around 00:43 to around 01:5, he/she did not drive the breath of alcohol.

The term "disting alcohol in the vehicle" means "disting alcohol in the vehicle," and did not comply with the measurement of drinking alcohol.

The defendant is therefore justified.