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

피고인은 2016. 2. 13. 04:00 경 순천시 B에 있는 C 당구장 앞 도로에서 술을 마신 상태에서 D 그랜저 승용차를 운전하다가 시동을 켠 상태로 위 승용차의 운전석에서 자고 있던 중 E 지구대 소속 경사 F로부터 피고인 입에서 술 냄새가 나고 얼굴에 홍조를 띄는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전을 하였다고

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand for responding to the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 30 minutes into a drinking measuring instrument.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 음주 측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

The defendant's legal statement, the circumstantial report of the driver, the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the application of the law on examination of evidence

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

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

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime that refuses to take a drinking test after approximately two weeks of drinking even though he/she was sentenced to a summary order on February 1, 2016, and thus, constitutes an unfavorable sentencing element against the Defendant.

However, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the defendant's age, sexual conduct, circumstances of the crime, etc., where there is no record of criminal punishment other than twice a fine for drinking driving, and where there is no record of criminal punishment.