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

On January 14, 2020, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test in a manner of inserting alcohol measuring instruments for the reason that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven the said vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, on the roads of Ulsan-gu B lending around 02:30 minutes, the Defendant refused to comply with the drinking test on three occasions, such as “I shall not measure the her mother as her mother,” “I shall not arrest the match,” and “I shall refuse to comply with the drinking test on the roads of Ulsan-gu B lending, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-do, and failed to comply with the drinking test of police officials by leaving the scene.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the regulations governing drinking drivers and the circumstantial report on drinking drivers;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (2) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose 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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [Legal Penalty: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than five years, or a fine of not less than five million won but not more than 20 million won] is an unfavorable circumstance that the Defendant committed the instant crime despite the fact that he/she was punished for drunk driving.

However, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant has led to the crime of this case, and the mistake is divided, and other various sentencing factors, such as the age, environment, and circumstances after the crime, are considered.