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

[Criminal Power] On August 28, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for one-year imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Gwangju District Court’s support for the promotion of the head of Gwangju District Court.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 26, 2019, at around 23:30, the Defendant driven CK7 car with drinking alcohol from approximately 500 meters from the roads in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the roads in front of Bur.

At this time, the Defendant was requested to take a alcohol test by inserting the appearance of the Defendant three times in a drinking measuring instrument from around 00:05 on October 27, 2019 to around 00:25 on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, sniffing, sniffing, and walking red on the face of the Defendant, without properly walkinging that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, such as refusal of the above E's drinking test.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement on the circumstances of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), and report on the control results of drinking driving;

1. Criminal records: To refer to inquiries, such as criminal records, and to the application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is to increase the risk of citizens to traffic safety and thus, the necessity of strict punishment is high, the defendant recognizes his mistake and seriously reflects it, the distance of the defendant's driving is not driving, and the same criminal record as the defendant's driving is the same.