A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On March 15, 2017, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million from the Busan District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On August 2, 2020, at around 04:20, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures) caused an accident, such as shocking of a taxi driven by D while driving CM5 vehicles on the roads in the influence of alcohol on the roads in front of Busan B, Busan, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, even though he was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting the respiratory distance into a drinking measuring instrument for about 15 minutes, such as a slopeF belonging to the Busan Coast Police Station E zone, which was called on the site after receiving an accident report. On the ground of reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol, such as a slopingf of the Busan Coast Police Station E zone, which was called on the site after receiving an accident report.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. In the date and place mentioned in paragraph (1), such as Paragraph (1), paragraph (1), and paragraph (1), the Defendant was demanded from G to take a drinking test for 15 minutes at several times from Busan National Police Station E District Unit, but the Defendant refused to comply with the request without any justifiable reason. However, the police officer G intending to arrest the Defendant as a flagrant offender due to the suspicion of refusing to take a drinking alcohol test. The police officer saw the Defendant as a defect, referring to “the calculation of tax base and the calculation of tax base,” and divers of the said G’s arms as the Defendant’s horses.

Accordingly, the defendant assaulted police officers and interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning handling 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendant’s statement of the police officer’s statement concerning G’s legal statement is an investigation report (the circumstances of the Defendant’s driver), internal investigation report (the attachment of the victim’s vehicle box image, boom image CD and quotation) and the situation at the time of the entry into the scene.