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

On September 29, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 3 million by the Seoul Central District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On July 4, 2020, at around 00:47, the Defendant driven Cbents’s car under the influence of alcohol for approximately 4 km from around 00:47 to the south East East East-dong intersection of the same Dong-dong 142-gil25, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Seoul.

At the time, the Defendant had a significant reason to recognize that he was driven while under the influence of alcohol by drinking, such as making a snick, a little string, and a heavy snow, etc., the Defendant conducted a drinking test after notifying the Seoul Gangnam Police Station D Inspector E, and one other. However, on the same day, the Defendant was required to comply with the drinking test at least three times, such as refusal of measurement at around 01:32 on the same day, refusal of measurement at around 01:37 on the same day, second-time measurement at around 01:42 on the same day, refusal of measurement at around 01:47 on the same day, and refusal of measurement at around 01:47 on the same day, but refused the drinking

As a result, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving or drinking refusal to take a drinking test more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notice of the results of the drinking-driving control, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, investigation report (Attachment to images refusing to measure), and one CD of images for which measurement is refused;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment of data related to criminal records) and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or 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 fact that it is highly necessary to eradicate the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act; the Defendant once again drives under influence despite his/her past record of punishment for drunk driving; the refusal of a request for a measurement of drinking by the crackdown police officer; there is no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine; and the Defendant’s age, character and conduct.