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

On October 1, 2016, at around 02:02, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument four minutes from around 02:06 to about 30 minutes on the same day, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, sniffing, bling, etc., while under the influence of alcohol, at the three-lane road near south-gu, Nam-gu, and being driven by the Defendant at the same time on the three-lane road.

그런데도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원이 요구한 음주측정에 응하지 않았다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the circumstantial report of a drinking driver and report on internal investigation (Refusal of measurement of drinking on October 1, 2016)

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (The following circumstances shall be considered in favor of the accused);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: Consideration of various factors for sentencing indicated in the records, such as Defendant’s age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances before and after crimes, other than the following circumstances: The fact that no traffic accident was caused, the fact that drinking driving was fined three times due to drinking driving, there was no other penalty force except for the fact that the above circumstances reflects mistake;