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

[Criminal Power] On September 23, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Ansan District Court's Ansan Branch on September 23, 2008.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 22, 2020, at around 01:35, the Defendant was required to comply with the measurement of alcohol by inserting approximately 15 minutes a drinking-free measuring instrument into a drinking-free measuring instrument for about three occasions from around 02:15 to 02:25 on July 22, 2020, after receiving a report of 112 that a sprink car was placed in the sprink on the front of B before the stay at the site, and after being dispatched to the site from D to the police officer of the resident police station who was dispatched to the site, and there was a reasonable reason to recognize that the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol, such as a sprinking distance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant stated that “it is not a driving within the country, but a disclosure of personal information is not possible,” and refused to put the whole in a drinking measuring instrument, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, despite the fact that the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act prohibiting driving under the influence of alcohol, the defendant violated Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which prescribes the duty of measurement of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, the actual condition survey report, and on-site photographs;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the results of crackdown on drinking driving, and the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though the defendant was punished for drunk driving, re-offending the same.

The defendant is driving.