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

피고인은 2015. 6. 12. 06:41경 안산시 단원구 B에 있는 C주유소 앞 사거리 편도 3차로 도로 중 2차로에서 본인 소유의 D BMW 승용차 운적석에 앉아 시동을 켠 상태로 잠을 자고 있던 중 신고를 받고 출동한 E파출소 순경 F에게 발견된 후, 음주감지기 실시한 결과 음주 반응이 나타나고 피고인에게서 술 냄새가 나고 얼굴에 홍조를 띠는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 자동차를 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 위 F로부터 2015. 6. 12. 07:13경부터 07:52경까지 4회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았다.

Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to perform an act of putting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument, and failed to comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual status of a host driver;

1. Related photographs;

1. Application of the video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

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

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

1. Circumstances that are favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, the background of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc. are committed, which are unfavorable to the disadvantage of sentencing: