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

On February 23, 2015, at around 23:50, the Defendant: (a) moved on the street in front of the “Dcafeteria” located in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon; (b) stopped the said vehicle while driving the vehicle, and (c) sent the Defendant a signal that the Defendant had a drinking reduction machine caused by hand, and the Defendant had a drinking defect caused by drinking; (d) the Defendant started the said vehicle, which is a dangerous object, led the victim’s arms in the driver’s seat, to shock the part of the window frame of the vehicle and led the victim as they were.

As a result, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of public officials on the drinking control by dangerous objects, and inflicted an injury on the victim, such as an excellent salt field in need of medical treatment for about two weeks.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

1. A medical certificate of injury, copy of a vehicle rental contract, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Reports on the occurrence of special obstruction of performance of official duties and investigation reports (specific suspects);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on photographs and reshotos;

1. The first sentence of Article 144 (2) and Articles 144 (1) and 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

2. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing).

4. Determination on the assertion of the accused and defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act regarding orders to provide community service and attend lectures

1. The gist of the argument was that at the time of the defendant's escape, the victim was showing that the victim was drinking out of the car after deducting the arm's length from the car, and thus, the victim's arms were not inside the car.

Therefore, the car operated by the defendant did not shock the arms of the victim, and the victim did not have been injured.

2. The evidence as seen earlier is examined.