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

On January 11, 2015, at around 01:32, the Defendant is driving a B Poter Cargo in his own possession, from the upstream to the front road of the Marine Corps (Seoul Metropolitan Government) in the influent city to the influence of the Marine Corps.

Dried in the signal atmosphere.

At the time when D was called to the scene by the police box in receipt of a report on a drunk driving, the Defendant was found to have driven under the influence of alcohol, such as the driver's seat of the above Poter cargo parked on one lane on the road while the direction of left-hand direction turn on the stop, and the response of drinking was made during the influence of alcohol, and the response of drinking was made during the influence of alcohol, and he was found to have driven under the influence of alcohol such as smelling, smelling on the face, etc., the Defendant demanded the police officer to comply with the alcohol measurement by inserting the whole breath of the drinking measuring instrument over about 30 minutes, but he did not comply with the police officer's request for a alcohol testing without

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A copy of the usage register of drunks;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da15488, Apr. 1, 2009);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for discretionary mitigation)

1. Order to attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;