A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 16, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Jeju District Court to a fine for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the same court on November 19, 2013 to a fine for the same crime, respectively.

1. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking) on and around December 22:08, 2016, the Defendant driven a C-A-hurbd-hurb-hurb-hurb-hurg-hurb-hurg-hurg-hurb-hurg-hurg-hurb-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-hurg-

2. On December 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was driving a motor vehicle from C, i.e., a police officer belonging to the police station in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Police Station D, which was under the influence of drinking drivers, on the roads near the 96-do in Jeju-do; (b) on December 9, 2016, the Defendant continued to stop the motor vehicle two times in order from the slope E and the Inspector F, a police officer belonging to the police station in the Jeju-gu, which was under the control of drinking drivers; and (c) the Defendant, a police officer belonging to the above slope E and the above D, demanded that the Defendant “on the blick blick blick, and getting off the vehicle from the vehicle,” and continued to drive the motor vehicle, failing to comply with the request.

The Defendant continued to drive the vehicle at a drinking level after deducting the keys from the vehicle's key through the window opened in the vehicle's seat of the vehicle with the above slope G so that the Defendant, who is in a drinking state, continued to drive the vehicle, and brought the vehicle from the above Aburged vehicle, and then brought the above slope G to the above slope G.

"To do so by hand, the left shoulder part of the above slope G was assaulted, such as the opening of a dunes of police duty, the removal of the dunes of police duty.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the control of drinking drivers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each written statement of G, E, and F;

1. A damaged photograph;

1. Report on the situation of a driver driving and notification of the result of regulating drinking driving; and