The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the sentencing of the prosecutor is unfair) of the lower court’s punishment (the suspended sentence of KRW 2 million in the amount of punishment) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. It is reasonable to take into account the following circumstances: (a) there is no record of criminal punishment against the accused; (b) the victimized police officer does not directly fit for the drinking of the accused; and (c) since the Defendant submitted a rebuttal to the prosecution, it appears that the Defendant recognized the crime in the instant trial process and misunderstanding the wrong; and (d) the Defendant expressed his/her intention that the victimized police officer does not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victimized police officer during the investigation.

However, a crime that interferes with the execution of official duties by a police officer dispatched upon receipt of a report 112 requires a strong response to the protection of the law and order and the eradication of light of public authority, and the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

However, in the taxi, after asking the path in the taxi, the taxi driver shows his sexual organ, and after doing a bath, he committed a crime that interferes with the performance of official duties, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, and the circumstances and contents of the crime are not good.

In addition, there are circumstances unfavorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the circumstances are inferior immediately after the crime, such as spiting, spiting, and noise around the earth, the defendant, who was investigated by the new wall police on the day of the crime, tried to deny the crime and avoid liability by showing a bad attitude by means of anti-influence, etc., the victim police officer stated in the police investigation that "the police officer who was under any influence of alcohol was spiting public power to the extent that he would cause such disregarding of public power," and the fact that the damaged police officer agreed with the damaged police officer, but it appears that the damage to the taxi article, which appears that the business loss would have been caused by severe spiting, is not recovered.

This is based on the two sentences of the same kind of case, and the defendant's person, including the above main circumstances.