A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] The defendant has a record of receiving a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving in Drinking) in the support of Sungnam-gu Office of Suwon on July 29, 2013, and a summary order of KRW 700,000 for a fine for the same crime in the same court on January 14, 2009.

[Criminal facts]

1. On December 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) driven a b bargaining car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.206% from the 1.2km section from the 3-dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Sin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City roads near the 3-dong Special Metropolitan City Sin-gu Special Metropolitan City Sin-gu Special Metropolitan City, to the 114-way road.

Accordingly, even though the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, he again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

2. On December 18, 2016, the Defendant: (a) refused to take a drinking test by a police officer belonging to the police officer belonging to the police station E group in the Jung-gu Police Station E group in the Gyeonggi-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, who received a report from 112 before D convenience stores in the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City; (b) refused to take a drinking test; and (c) the police officer, who is a police officer belonging thereto, said F, “I am off and me off,” said F, “I am off and me off,” used the police session at the police session, thereby falling off the police inquiry device on the floor of the next police, and continuously arrested a police officer who was a police officer belonging to the same Dong, who was under his/her control, for whom he/she received a drinking test.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver;

1. On-site photographs and caps of a fluorous video;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (a)

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning facts constituting an offense (the point of drinking).