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

Around 19:00 on October 12, 2019, the Defendant demanded a alcohol test on the road in front of a police box located in B, at the time of showing, for the reason that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling around the 112 report, by the driver of a police box at the time of showing the police box, on the ground that: (a) on the road in front of a police box located in B; and (b) on the road in front of a police box outside of a police box, “the driver is driving; and (c) the driver

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with the police officer’s measurement without any justifiable reason despite the Defendant’s demand to comply with the drinking alcohol measurement in a manner of inserting the drinking measuring machine from around 19:05 on October 12, 2019 to around 19:20 on the same day, and in a total of three times on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of the driving of a motor vehicle;

1. Reports on internal investigation (Refusal of measurement, suspect A);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of use of drinking meters;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (2) 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. Taking into account all the circumstances, including the following: (a) the Defendant, for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, has a criminal record of a fine for drunk driving only once (2000), while recognizing the Defendant’s mistake; (b) the distance of driving is shorter; (c) a substitute driver parked the vehicle on the road; and (d) a substitute driver is trying to move the vehicle to