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

On January 26, 2013, at the office of Kimpo-dong Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong, 2013, the Defendant found the Defendant at the driver’s seat of the Di 30 vehicle that was parked in the speed of the city in front of Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong, Gapo-dong, Kimpo-si, and called after receiving a report that the former her driver was a vehicle operated in the state of free trade practice, and the assistant C, etc. belonging to the above police box called after receiving a report that the former her driver was a vehicle operated in the state of free trade practice, and found the Defendant at the driver’s seat of the Dopo-dong, Kimpo-dong, Mapo-dong, Mapo-si, Gapo-si, Gapo-si, Gapo-si, Gapo-si, Gapo-si, the reported place, where the latter her report was made, and did not comply with the request of police officers for drinking measurement without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs refusing to measure drinking;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Apr. 1, 201);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., the foregoing circumstances and the facts that the defendant has no criminal record of suspended execution);

1. Order to attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;