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

피고인은 2018. 12. 12. 04:27분경 세종시 B아파트 정문 인근 도로에서부터 위 아파트 지하주차장에 이르기까지 술에 취해 C 그랜져 승용차를 운전하다가, 음주운전 의심 차량이 있다는 내용의 112 신고를 받고 출동한 세종경찰서 D파출소 소속 경위 E으로부터 피고인이 위 차량 시동을 켠 상태로 운전석에 앉아 있고 입에서 술냄새가 나며 걸음을 비틀거리고 횡설수설하는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 같은 날 04:43경부터 04:53경까지 3차례에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았다.

Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement without a justifiable reason, while evading “in apartment complex, it is not a drunk driving,” “I see whether I am to dice a drinking test on the ground of Neman’s Marson,” “I am to single in it only.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (limited to reasons for regulating non-driving practices);

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. Despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for drunk driving even before the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the nature of the crime is not good because he/she fails to comply with the police officer's request for alcohol alcohol measurement while driving again under the influence of alcohol.

However, it shall be taken into consideration in favor of the facts against which they are against.

The motive and background of the crime including the above circumstances, the method and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, the age and environment of the defendant.