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

[Criminal Power] On May 2, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Daegu District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (FIC).

【Criminal Facts】

On July 14, 2019, at around 04:00, the Defendant was required to comply with the alcohol test by inserting the breath in the front parking lot of Daegubuk-gu B apartment Cdong on July 14, 2019, on the ground that there was a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol, such as a breathing snow and a breathing breath from F, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report of 112, and was called out to the scene.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused to put the breath alcohol measuring instrument into a drinking-free measuring instrument, which means that he/she is unable to comply with a drinking test because he/she has a negative driving, and failed to comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

As a result, the defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol and refused to take a drinking test.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, investigation reports, and investigation reports;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, 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. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The circumstances favorable to the fact that there have been several records of punishment for the same kind of crime: confession and reflect, the fact that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are shown in the arguments of this case.