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

On August 25, 2011, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine in the same court on April 3, 2014.

On December 5, 2019, the Defendant received 112 report to the effect that “a vehicle in parking” was being driven by a vehicle in the B parking lot of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, while drinking alcohol, and received a notification from the police officer E belonging to the Ulsan-gu Police Station D for the Ulsan-gu Police Station that deemed the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol, smelling on the face, red-lighting, etc. for about 15 minutes, and was demanded to comply with the drinking test by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument three-minutes over 15 minutes.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of the investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver) and the usage register of a drinking measuring instrument;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on summary order;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act that 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 Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures lies in recognizing and opposing the defendant's mistake, the fact that the defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine is favorable, the defendant has been punished twice due to drunk driving, and the fact that physical damage has occurred due to the drinking driving of this case is considered as disadvantageous circumstances, and the defendant's age, character, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered.