However, each of the above cases against the defendants for two years from the date of the final conclusion of the judgment.

1. Defendant A

A. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant was driving a Frodi vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.154% in the blood while under the influence of alcohol on the front of the road, up to the 4km of the “the second apartment house in Furine,” located in Pyeongtaek-si joint-dong on February 20, 2016, at the same time in front of the search day.

B. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) discovered that the police officers belonging to Pyeongtaek-gu Police Station G Police Station would control drinking while driving a car under the influence of alcohol on the road before the “Seoul-gu University” in the movement of Pyeongtaek-si around 23:40 on February 20, 2016; (b) on the same day, the Defendant was arrested of the police officers prior to the “Fu apartment” in the movement of Pyeongtaek-si while driving a car under the influence of alcohol; and (c) on the other hand, the direction of driving a car on the road while flying approximately 1.5km away.

At this time, the Defendant: (a) requested the police officer of the G police box to respond to the measurement of drinking by H; (b) the Defendant was aware of the fact that “the Defendant was aware;

This dogba, when and when internal organs wish

The Defendant spits water that was fested in the above H face to drive his or her fright at his or her foods. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the police officer’s legitimate execution of duties concerning the prevention of crime and the control of drinking.

2. On February 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) on the road in front of the “fest apartment” in the movement of Pyeongtaek-si, Defendant B: (b) demanded the head of the police box affiliated with the G police box to comply with a drinking test; (c) Ha, who was in his/her hand, sent the h’s chest to the said h’s chest; and (d) Ha, who attempted to arrest the said H in the act of committing a crime as a suspicion of interference with the performance of his/her official duties, carried the above h’s left arms by pushing the said h’s hand; and (e) Ha, the police box affiliated with the G police box, who prevented him/her, carried the h’s shoulder.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties concerning the police officer's drinking control and arrest of flagrant offenders.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement by the police of each victims;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on driving under influence of alcohol;