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

[criminal power] On May 3, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant had the aforementioned history of driving under the influence of alcohol, on March 8, 2020, around 19:21, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting the breathm car into a total of four times from around 19:24 to 19:41 on the same day, while driving D’s camry car on the front of the C kindergarten located in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan City B, and there was a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, snishing, snishing, etc. from F, belonging to the head of the Gyeongyang Police Station E-gu, Goyangyang Police Station E-gu, which was under control, while driving the D’s camry car.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused to use a drinking measuring instrument and failed to comply with the request for a drinking test by a police officer without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Inquiries about the results of the drinking driving control and notification of the results of the drinking driving control;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of statutes governing judgment;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, 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. The crime of this case with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order of Education and the Order of Community Service is a case where the defendant refused to measure drinking despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for driving under drinking, and the defendant's liability for the crime

However, the defendant stated that all the facts charged are recognized and against the defendant, the defendant received relevant medical treatment, the defendant has no penalty, the defendant has a good wife and child who is not sufficient to support, the sale of the vehicle after 201.