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

Around 01:00 on July 11, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a CSS5 car on the front of the Fishery Market, which is located in the YTN/Dong-dong Ordinance of 01:00; (b) the Defendant observed the circumstances that the said vehicle was driven by a drinking driver, such as the Defendant, who was in the drive of the said vehicle, and was in the front of the YTN-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

In light of the witness’s statements, etc., the Defendant was required to respond to the alcohol alcohol measurement by inserting three times from the above slopeF, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol in light of the witness’s statements, etc. at the Macheon Police Station from around 01:56 to 02:2 of the same day.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused it, and the defendant did not comply with the drinking test of a police officer without a justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Control note;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning rejection of measurement;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Order to attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;