1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 27, 2014, at around 23:02, the Defendant, while driving C 124C occacc on the roads of the Dongjak-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, at around 343-20, was demanded from D, a police officer belonging to the traffic safety department of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station, who controlled drinking, to stop on the side and park on the side.

However, the Defendant, by neglecting the above D’s demand, proceeded in the future as it is without disregarding the demand of the above D, led the above D to the left part of the above Otoba, which is a dangerous object, and got the said D above the floor, and escaped as it is.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of D, who is a police official under traffic control using an Oral Ba, which is a dangerous object, and thereby, suffered injury such as salt, tension, etc. in need of approximately two weeks of treatment to D.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses D and E's respective legal statements;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of the Medical Certificate (D) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 144 (2) and (1), and Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration in favor of the accused deemed to be the grounds for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be repeated for the defendant in favor of the reason for sentencing):

1. Determination on the defendant's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act

1. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not have obtained D on the left side of the part, and D did not go beyond the right side of the defendant's left side while leaving D on his hand.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by this Court, i.e., D, the investigation agency and this Court consistently, and the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle.