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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a observer car in B.

On February 16, 2014, at around 20:05, the Defendant was required to respond to the alcohol alcohol measurement by inserting approximately 35 minutes of the alcohol measuring instrument into five minutes around the above time, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, and breathing, in the underground parking lot of the Cheongcheon Apartment Apartment Apartment Apartment Apartment apartment, located in the Cheongdobri-ri-si, Cheongdo-ri-si, the Defendant, at around 20:05.

Nevertheless, without any justifiable reason, the Defendant did not comply with the police officer’s above demand for alcohol testing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (investigation report on the acts committed by the suspect), application of photographic Acts and subordinate statutes to refuse to measure the alcohol of the suspect;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., reflectiveness);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

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