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

On October 26, 2014, at around 23:40, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting approximately 20 minutes a while driving a BMW car in front of 69 on the road at the Han-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, and on the 69-do, while driving the BMW car on the 69-do.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the notification of the results of the drinking-driving control, the report on the state of the drinking-driving and statement, and a copy thereof;

1. Relevant Articles 148-1 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Special Considerations in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing following the suspended sentence);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture is two times a fine for the same kind of crime, or one time a suspended sentence is suspended, and the defendant is driving under the influence of drinking.

The defendant needs to be punished strictly in light of the fact that he/she was discovered, and that he/she did not comply with the measurement.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant reflects his mistake; (b) the Defendant did not commit any particular crime for the last nine years; and (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct and environment; and (d) the background and motive leading to the instant crime; and (b) the circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the sentence is imposed as ordered by the Criminal Procedure Act.