Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 11, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven a C CC C CCB car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.156% from the 300-meter section to the road located in the 742-4 of Ansan-si, Ansan-si, the 742-4 of the grassland.

2. On November 11, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the performance of official duties: (a) on the road located in Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-si, Gyeonggi-do, 742-6, the 112-6, stating that “A person is used on a vehicle,” and that “A police officer belonging to the D police unit belonging to the police station of the Gyeonggi-do, who called out after receiving a 112 report, shall open the Defendant’s driver’s seat and have the Defendant wear out the Defendant, and then, (b) demanded the Defendant to take a drinking test against the Defendant who sniffly bling, “A person is not different from the drinking measuring machine.”

“In the ductation of a cross-section, E has been assessed at least three times with the bucket.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on the dispatch of report 112 and the measurement of drinking alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report the circumstances of drivers driving a drinking and notify the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of drinking alcohol), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties), and the selection of fines for each 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. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment is that the Defendant once again drives the instant drinking even though he had the record of being punished for driving under the influence of alcohol; the Defendant committed the instant crime interfering with the performance of official duties by assaulting the police officer who was requested to take a measurement of drinking because he was found to have the driving under the influence of alcohol; in light of the circumstances and details of the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s liability is not somewhat weak

one fine, which is heavier than a fine.