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

On August 29, 2016, at around 04:50 on August 29, 2016, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting alcohol into a breath for about 20 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a bMF car under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking and smelling on the face, while driving alcohol on the front of the D Printed Office located in C with the alcohol population at the time of Gyeonggi-do.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused this and did not comply with the request for a direction measurement by police officers without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of the driving control;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of penalty, 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 (Article 62 (1) of the suspended sentence (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant commits the crime of this case even though he is found to have been drunk before the end of one month); and

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