[criminal power] On August 21, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court, and on March 26, 2012, a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime was issued on March 26, 2012.

【Criminal Facts】

On April 3, 2020, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting approximately 30 minutes of alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument while driving a Dropic vehicle while drinking about about 100 km in a section of 100 meters from the French Provincial Police Agency, the security guards of the E Zone for the Highway, while driving the Dropic vehicle under the influence of drinking at around 01:06, the Defendant was on considerable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, such as drinking alcohol, drinking on the face while drinking about about 30 minutes from the F, who was in the position of the Gangwon-do Provincial Police Agency, the E Zone for the Expressway, and was not able to properly bread and bread from drinking-free and so on.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was driving, but did not drink, but did not comply with the police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason by avoiding why he was able to take a drinking test.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Results of the CD reproduction and viewing;

1. The circumstantial statement statement and investigation report of the employer (the circumstantial report of the employer-employed driver);

1. Each photograph;

1. Arrest report and each investigation report (No. 6 and 9 No. 5 of the evidence list);

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to the same type of ruling), and application of each statute of the judgment;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant repeats his/her drunk driving on several occasions.

The Defendant committed a crime of refusing to measure drinking of this case, and the Defendant was crackdownd at an expressway resting area, and was image or image.