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

피고인은 2012. 06.03 00:15경 평택시 진위면 하북리 스타일맴버스 앞 도로를 술을 마신 상태에서 C SM5승용차를 운전하던 중 평택경찰서 교통안전계 소속 순경 D로부터 얼굴에 홍조를 띠고 술냄새가 나는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 약 40분간에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았다.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol testing without justifiable grounds, such as avoiding inserting the whole breath of a drinking measuring instrument.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Investigation report (Report on the status of an employee);

1. A copy of the usage register of a drinking-free measuring instrument, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the next time;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act requires a police officer under influence of alcohol to take a alcohol test. In light of the circumstance that the defendant again commits the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that he/she had a history of criminal punishment due to drinking driving, the criminal liability of the defendant cannot be deemed to be light.

However, the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, and circumstances after the crime, are determined as ordered by considering the fact that the defendant seems to have led to confession and reflect on the crime in this case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.