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

On July 16, 2016, at around 23:10, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument three times in total on three occasions at around 23:43, around 23:50, and around 00:08, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument at around 400 meters from the YY to the gingginggingg., and received a report from D while driving the B, and there is considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, and so on. However, the Defendant did not comply with the drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the sobreath test of a police officer as a person who has a considerable reason to recognize that he is under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. E statements;

1. The user ledger of the measuring instruments for drinking;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs which refuse to measure alcohol;

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;

1. The punishment to prevent recidivism shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the criminal records of the same kind of crime (two times the penalty of a fine for a sound driving), age, environment, etc. of the accused for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;