A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a halogCC car in light of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the Violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the Road Traffic Act (Non-accident).

On February 2, 2013, at around 13:57, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.182% of blood alcohol concentration. On February 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven the said bombCC car and transferred the intersection of the distance prior to the breath of the breath in the (ju)-dong, North-gu, Gwangju to the right side of the breath to the breath; (b) was under the influence of alcohol to turn to the left at the left-hand side of the breath of the said breath in order to turn to the left-hand left-hand side of the said breath of the car due to occupational negligence, which did not keep well see the breath and the left-hand side of the said brealogbCC car.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, which requires treatment for about one week, due to the above accident, and at the same time damaged the repair cost equivalent to KRW 1,024,558, such as the fronter of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front, the Defendant immediately stopped and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as aiding the victim.

2. On April 3, 2013, at the entrance of the G District gate located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju on April 3, 2013, the Defendant sought to enter the district unit where he was under contact with the Defendant who was under investigation on the charge of property damage and damage. The Defendant, who explained the complex situation of G District G District H belonging to the Seo-gu, Gwangju Western Police Station G District, and explained the complex situation inside the district unit, and agreed with it, and the Defendant expressed that the Defendant “I am the police station,” and then I am h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h h.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties concerning investigation and maintenance of order by police officers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police officer with D and H.