A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 17, 2020, the Defendant reported on August 17, 2020 to the effect that drinking would be doubtful on the road in front of the Gun Bel, 01:41, the Defendant used the 112 report to the effect that drinking would be doubtful on the road in front of the Gun Bel, and that the Defendant used the Dondon Police Station C police officer affiliated with the police station C police station, who was requested the above D to take a drinking test from the police officer D, who was in charge of the Dondon Police Station C police station, "I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I do not am, I am, I am, I am the breath of the above D, and am the E police officer affiliated with the same Gun group, and assaulted the part of the Ga's chest.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of the police officer on the handling of the 112 reported case.

On September 14, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million with fines of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Southern Sea Branch of the Gwangju District Court on August 5, 201, in the case of a violation of road traffic law (dacting driving), and on August 5, 201, a summary order of KRW 2 million with fines of KRW 2 million was issued.

[2] On August 17, 2020, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, etc., to the Defendant, from a police officer affiliated with the police station C Dondo Police Station C Dondo Police Station, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report from 112 stating that “the Defendant has a suspected motor vehicle for drinking” on the front of the Dondo Dondo Police Station Bndo Don-do Police Station at the scene.

인 정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 약 5분 동안 수회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주 측정에 응할 것을 요구 받았음에도 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 44(1) or 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

【2020 Highest 331】

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. 20 Maz. 355 Maz.m. report (F phone call);

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The principal driver;