A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On December 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 2km of about 0.135% alcohol concentration in blood, from the front of the king located in the king of Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si; (b) around 06:30 on December 19, 2016, to the 13rd of the Western Sea, which is located in the 13rd of Sinsi-si; (c) the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.135% in blood.

2. Around 07:00 on December 19, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties concerning the control of crime by assaulting the police officer on the ground that the police officer belonging to G District in the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station G District, G District in the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station, who called out after receiving a suspected report on driving alcohol on the roads front of the Yellow Sea, demands a alcohol test and prevents his career by blocking his/her passage. On several occasions, he/she saw his/her chest’s chest into two hands. On several occasions, he/she saws his/her face on a drinking floor, gets off his/her seat into his/her hands, and thereby obstructing the police officer from performing his

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Notification of the results of drinking measurement, driving regulation, and driving control;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant legal provisions of the Criminal Act, Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (Interference with the performance of official duties), Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of imprisonment for each type of crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution is deemed to be bad, and the necessity of punishment is high for interfering with the execution of official duties.

The degree of interference with the execution of official duties of the defendant is not less severe, and the circumstances after the crime are also poor.

However, considering the fact that the defendant shows an attitude against the defendant, that there is no particular criminal history, the defendant's age, occupation, sex, environment, etc., and all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records, such as before and after the crime of this case, the sentence like the order shall be determined.