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

[criminal power] On March 17, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million at the Seoul Eastern District Court for the same crime as a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On April 20, 2007, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime.

【Criminal Facts】

On July 14, 2019, at around 01:46, the Defendant was demanded to respond to a drinking test for about 30 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as (i) the police box of the Dobong Police Station C, (ii) the police box of Seoul Dobong Police Station C, (iii) the slope E, (iv) the F Department G, and (v) the police officer of the F Department G, and (ii) the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and (iii) the Defendant was able to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as by driving under the influence of alcohol, due to a negative nature, face, and snow shock.

Nevertheless, the defendant is considered only once, and the defendant did not comply with the police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on investigation (report on the circumstances of a driver) and a report on investigation (as to the suspect's black image)

1. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, the circumstantial report on the driving of a drinking house, and the details of control;

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a criminal history report and a copy of each summary order;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act that 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. Although the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment twice due to the drunk driving, the Defendant committed the instant crime of refusing a police officer’s request for measurement of drinking alcohol without justifiable grounds after driving alcohol while drinking alcohol, it is not good that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, the fact that the defendant shows his wrong behavior in late and against him, and that the defendant drinks his drinking.