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 September 20, 2017, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million by the Seoul Central District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

Around 02:05 on May 1, 2020, the Defendant was demanded to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument over about 10 minutes on the road in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and “Absent driver and an accident occurred.................” on the road in the state of drinking, the Defendant was required to comply with the drinking test by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument for about 10 minutes, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of drinking, such as drinking, smelling on the face, pressinging red on the face, and making it inaccurate for him/her to have driven under the influence of drinking, etc. after receiving 112 reports.

그럼에도 피고인은 이를 거부하거나 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Results of the recycling of documentary evidence pictures and CDs;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the report on the status of the employer driver);

1. On-site vehicle photographs and internal investigation reports (No. 10 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. The actual survey report, the vehicle photograph of the accident, and the police report on F;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (verification of the same kind of force), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing summary orders;

1. In addition to the pertinent provision on criminal facts and the provision of Article 148-2(1) and Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act of which the defendant violated the provisions of Article 44(1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act on more than two occasions to meet the requirements of Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is a penal provision, the obligation of the defendant to violate the provisions of this case is Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, so the obligation of violation provision