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

The defendant is a person who drives B automobiles.

On April 1, 2019, when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant started the said vehicle at the parking lot of the Si of the Hadong-gun, Chungcheongnam-dong, Seoul, and was locked up on the roads in front of D, and was demanded to comply with the measurement of alcohol on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as the Defendant’s drinking, and that the vehicle was set up at the center of the road while the vehicle was frighted by F of the Hadong Police Station, who was called up after receiving a 112 report, and that “the said vehicle is standing on the road.”

Nevertheless, the Defendant, without good cause, refused to comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol testing on five occasions from 04:50 to 05:15 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of a drinking driver, investigation report, notification of the results of the control of drinking driving, notification of the results thereof, 112 report handling table, application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing vehicles;

1. Article 148-2(1)2 and Article 44(2) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Mitigation: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2

1. Orders to provide community service or attend lectures: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;