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

1. Around 18:10 on October 21, 2014, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) driven approximately five kilometers from the front of the modern apartment in the Gangseo-si, Gangseo-si without a driver’s license to the front of the island bridge located in the same city of the same city.

2. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol so as to put the breath on three occasions between approximately 21 minutes in a 21 minute, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling the Defendant from F in an emergency room of the D Hospital located in Gangnam-si C, the security guards of the Gangnam Police Station E District of the Gangnam Police Station, etc., at around 19:38.

Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s request for sobage measurement by avoiding the method of putting the breath-man into a drinking measuring instrument, without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report, investigation report (Refusal of measurement), and photograph of the host driver;

1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of crime, the choice of punishment, and the punishment under Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of refusing to measure sound), and the selection of imprisonment under subparagraphs 1 and 43 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of driving without a license);

1. From among concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act with heavier punishment and the crimes of violation of the same Act) ;

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

1. The fact that the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended sentence is against the defendant's recognition of the crime and the fact that the defendant has no criminal records exceeding the fine is favorable to the defendant, and the defendant has the record of having been sentenced to a fine in 2011 and 2014 due to the drunk driving.