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

[Criminal Power] On April 25, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won at the Busan District Court on the ground of a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 6, 2019, the Defendant violated the duty of prohibition of drunk driving as above, and returned to the above house from around 300 meters to the front road of the house located in the Busan Y-gu B, Busan Y-gu, the Defendant was demanded to respond to the measurement of drunk driving by inserting alcohol in a manner of inserting alcohol while driving the eM7 vehicle from around 300 meters to the front road of the house located in the Busan Y-gu. On the same day, on around 22:34, the Defendant was in receipt of a report on drunk driving and returned to the above house. On the other hand, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of drunk driving from the border G belonging to the F of the Busan Y-gu, Busan Y-gu, which was called for under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling,

Nevertheless, the Defendant: “I am frith in my house. I am frith in my house, but I am frith in my house,” and avoided this, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a sobling test without good cause.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, the inquiry into the results of the regulation of drinking driving, the internal investigation report (including the details of 112 reports), the investigation report (DVD attached to the suspect's driving image), and the investigation report (DV attached to the suspect's rejection of measurement, such as video);

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry records, and copies of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was that the Defendant re-driving a motor vehicle, even though he had a record of being punished for driving a motor vehicle once, and refused a police officer’s request for a measurement of lawful drinking.

However, the defendant is the defendant.