beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. On July 21, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the branch court of the Daegu District Court on July 21, 201, and on December 18, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of one million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the administrative branch branch court of the Daegu District Court on December 18, 2008.
On March 28, 2013, at around 02:40, the Defendant driven a ecoo vehicle B in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 500 meters from a section of approximately 500 meters from the front of the land frighton in the Seogu Seog-gu Seog-gu, Daegu to the front of the Hanmun-gu, Seogu, Seogu.
2. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while driving under the influence of alcohol, as described in paragraph (1) around March 28, 2013; (b) was towing Category D vehicles under the influence of alcohol.
At this time, the victim E (the 39 years of age), who is the witness of the above accident, called "I need not see if I am frithly drive" to the defendant, and the victim's face is hyd with the victim's face, and the victim's face continues to be pushed back by the victim, and the victim's face is hypted and the victim's face is faced with the defect of the treatment date and the part of the bridge and the part of the bridge.
3. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant: (a) 02:40 on March 28, 2013, and (b) 112, as indicated in paragraph (2), sent to the site after receiving a report of 112 years of age; and (b) Gyeong (30) was under the control of the Defendant, the Defendant: (a) expressed to G of the G that “the head of the Seongbuk-gu Police Station F District of Seongbuk-gu, who was called the head of the Dong-gu, would be changed to “the head of the Dong-gu, who would turn off the G’s face at two times by lubbbbbbing the right buck, and went beyond the floor.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers on handling 112 reports.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A report on the occurrence of a traffic accident and a report on actual condition investigation;
1. A written instruction from an employer;