A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) 1:45 Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si, 114-ro 14, on the road, and (b) was on the low-speed car driven by C, which was under the influence of drinking, and C was under the control of C’s drinking operation, and was under the control of C’s drinking operation, etc., on his hand, she expressed the desire to prevent C from being under the control of C’s drinking. In order to prevent C from being under the control of C’s drinking, she was under the control of C’s drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers on the crackdown on drinking driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each statement of H, F, G, I, and J;

1. A copy of the working log;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (including the attachment, etc. of CDs and CCTV photographs);

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor concerning the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the defense counsel, which bear the cost of lawsuit, asserts that although the defendant took a bath, etc. against the police officer, he did not speak or interfere with C's drinking control, he did not interfere with C's drinking control, and even though he did not stick the chest of the police officer with his hand, he did not cut the shoulder of E's left arms when she takes over the hand or her hand.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, E, F, and G, a police officer, from the investigative agency to the court of this Court, to the police officer, and from the investigation agency to the court of this Court, the Defendant stated that “A driver, who was under the influence of alcohol, demanded the driver, C to leave the police officer to measure the alcohol level,” and the Defendant stated that “A police officer, who was a driver, was under the influence of alcohol, was under the influence of alcohol, was under the influence of alcohol, and I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I am under the influence of I.