The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In order to avoid the crackdown on the drinking of a police officer, the Defendant was driving at a rapid speed of 40 minutes and carried out a scambling for more than 40 minutes, and the means and methods of committing the crime are very dangerous, such as refusing to comply with a police officer’s demand to stop a vehicle, making a police officer take patrol during the course of escape, and making a police

The accused's crime is highly likely to be criticized by causing a traffic accident, such as causing serious personal and material damage or hindering traffic.

Furthermore, even though the Defendant had already been punished for drinking driving three times, the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the condition of drinking alcohol concentration of 0.185% at the same time.

On the other hand, the defendant is against all of the crimes of this case, such as recognizing the criminal intent of causing bodily injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., in the appellate trial.

In the appellate court, the defendant deposited KRW 5 million with the police officer who was injured by special obstruction of performance of official duties as the victim, and the above police officer wanted to take the defendant's wife.

In light of these circumstances, considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of the instant case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and method of the instant crime, consequences, and circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable even if considering the aforementioned circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant.

Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading.

[Discied reasoning of the judgment of the court below] Since it is the same as the description of each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below on criminal facts and evidence, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with Article 3

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;