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

On May 6, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 21:43, at the Defendant’s residence located in Asan City B around May 6, 2018, the Defendant was driving a sports vehicle on behalf of the Defendant at around 20:48 on May 6, 2018, and was working on behalf of the Defendant to the destination; (b) thereafter, the Defendant appeared to drive the said vehicle directly under the influence of alcohol.

“A person driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling the Defendant, by the chief of the police box affiliated with the Asan Police Station D, dispatched after receiving a report of “Asan Police Station D”, while under the influence of alcohol.

On May 6, 2018, when there are reasonable grounds to suspect, the applicant demanded that the applicant comply with the drinking alcohol measurement by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument three times from that time until May 6, 2018, but did not comply with it without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. A report on internal investigation:

1. A report on investigation;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act regarding orders to provide community service and attend lectures

1. The police officers of the gist of the assertion failed to obtain the consent of the person having the right to residence at the time when the defendant's dwelling and demand a measurement of drinking.

Even if the police officer consented to the entry of residence explicitly, the demand for a drinking test made by the defendant's dwelling is illegal unless the police officer notifies the defendant that he/she may demand the withdrawal at any time.

In addition, the defendant does not want to stop drinking at the time when police officers demand the measurement of drinking by drinking.

D. The police officer’s demand for the continued measurement of drinking, despite the demand for the eviction by stating “D.”