2. Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be confiscated;

1. Around April 18:15, 2015, the Defendant was driving a vehicle of K Car II without obtaining a driver’s license from the front side of the Defendant’s house located in the Jeonnam Ham-gun C to the front side of J in I.

2. On April 25, 2015, at around 18:15, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the measurement of the drinking level), the Defendant was required to comply with the measurement of the drinking level by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument for approximately 20 minutes by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument while driving a Karen II car on the roads before J, with the report of the fact that “A person who drives a vehicle by drinking” while driving the vehicle by drinking on the front of the J, along with the details of the police box affiliated with N, and the circumstances leading up to the police box of the Karan Police Station sent. The Defendant was required to comply with the measurement of the drinking level by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument for about 20 minutes.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's demand for alcohol testing by refusing to put his/her breath in a drinking measuring instrument, without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning reports on detection of drivers, reports on circumstantial statements of drivers, control details, ledger of driver's licenses, car inquiry, field photographs, and seizure records;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of crime, subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusal of measurement of noise), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant was punished several times for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the violation of the Road Traffic Act. In particular, the defendant was indicted for the violation of the Road Traffic Act by the Gwangju District Court 2014 Highest 4308.