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

[criminal power] On March 9, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Suwon District Court, and a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court on June 28, 2013.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 13, 2020, at around 07:57, the Defendant was required to comply with the alcohol test by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument four times in total, not later than 08:15 on April 13, 2020, when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking a large amount of alcohol smell and drinking reaction, from D by the police station affiliated with the Gyeonggi-gu Police Station, Seoul Police Station, which called upon 112 to the police station of the Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul Police Station, which called, after receiving the report of 112, and the Defendant did not comply with the demand of police officers for the alcohol test without justifiable grounds by refusing it.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement, investigation report, and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Relevant photographs;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (Attachment to summary orders of the same kind of case) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime, Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, 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 on probation;

1. The Defendant committed the instant crime, despite the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order and Order to Attend the lecture, despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished for drinking driving as stated in its reasoning. The instant crime is bad because it is aimed at evading his responsibility for drinking driving, and thus, it is considered that the Defendant committed the instant crime.