A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 August 27, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of three million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. from the Seogu District Court Branch Branch on August 27, 201, and on October 6, 2011, the same court received a summary order of a fine of four million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

1. Around 22:45 on April 14, 2014, the Defendant was driving a bub car while under the influence of alcohol at approximately 300 meters from a opn range in the direction of “original salary” in the Daegu Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu to the front of the convenience store at approximately 300 meters of blood alcohol concentration at approximately 0.177%, from the opn range in the direction of “original salary” to the front of the convenience store.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

2. The Defendant, at around 22:52 on April 14, 2014, is driving under the influence of alcohol as described in paragraph (1), prior to the convenience stores located in the 3-ri-ro 35-gil 28 (Ja-dong) in Daegu-gu, Seo-gu.

The 112 report was received as a result of a traffic accident that leads to a parked vehicle.

Around that time, the Defendant: (a) requested a drinking measurement from the police station C District D, etc. affiliated with the Daegu Western Police Station C District D, etc., who was dispatched after receiving the said report; (b) provided the said D with “insurance management, match D; and (c) provided the said D with an desire to refrain from doing so; and (d) requested the said D to comply with the said measurement.

However, while the Defendant continued to view about 20 citizens who are gathered at the accident site, he saw “Chewing gue, in mind,” etc., and assaulted the left side of the D on three occasions due to the Defendant’s appearance.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning the traffic control of police officers and the prevention of traffic hazards.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on investigation (in relation to attachment, such as a report on detection of a host person);

1. Criminal records before judgment: Criminal records;