The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

1. As to the gist of the reasons for appeal, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too unaffortable and unfair as it is too unaffortable to the prosecutor.

2. According to the judgment, the crime of this case is a condition for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant, such as the following: (a) the defendant, who had been engaged in drinking alcohol driving force at several times, driven a vehicle in the course of escape from the police, and 10 minutes high speed; (b) the signal violation, illegal internship, etc.; and (c) the police officer aboard the patrol vehicle in order to secure the course of escape; and (d) the victim inflicted an injury on the police officer aboard the patrol vehicle; and (b) the nature of the crime is not very good in light of the circumstances, means, and consequence; (c) the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties requires strict punishment for the crime detrimental to the State’s function by nullifying legitimate exercise of public power; and (d) the above behavior of the defendant led to serious damage to the body and property of ordinary citizens.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to be low in danger rather than directly inflicting any harm on the victimized police officer by the patrol vehicle on a passenger vehicle, which is a dangerous object by the defendant. It is difficult to view that the injured police officer was serious in injury. The defendant, 3 days after the defendant escaped and voluntarily surrendered to the police officer, the defendant does not have any record of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol in 2007, or there is no record of criminal punishment due to the same kind of crime after he was punished for driving under the influence of alcohol in 207, and the defendant is recognized the crime of this case and is against the judgment of the court, and the defendant is trying to recover damage by deposit of the damaged police officer with the damaged police officer as a deposit, and 80,000 won was paid to the injured police officer, and the expenses for repairing the patrol police officer are expected to be covered, and thus, the damage will be substantially recovered.