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

On October 15, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court's Ansan-dong branch.

On October 3, 2019, the Defendant: (a) at a police box located in Ansan-si B, at around 18:50 on October 3, 2019; (b) there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as the distance between the brings and the brings, etc., the Defendant did not comply with the breath measurement by means of inserting the breath at intervals of about 19:15 on the same day, around 19:2 on the same day; (c) around 19:22 on the same day; and (d) around 19:29 on the same day. However, the Defendant did not comply with the breath measurement by means of inserting the breath in total three times at intervals of about 18:50 on the same day; and (d) “I will only see whether I want to get humans living in the workplace.”

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking alcohol driving, the report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, the investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), the confirmation of the person refusing to measure drinking alcohol, the report on internal investigation (with respect to the attachment of photographs refusing to measure drinking), and the report on investigation (a copy of the ledger using the drinking instruments);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records and other inquiries, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (the confirmation of criminal records of a suspect's drunk driving);

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on orders to provide community service and attend lectures has again committed the instant crime even though the defendant had a previous record of drunk driving.

However, the defendant's previous conviction was 10 years ago.

The age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, motive, means and result of the crime, and after the crime is committed.