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

On February 7, 2014, the Defendant was driving at the street parking lot located in C, located in B, at the time of 17:30 on February 7, 2014, while driving the Maz vehicle in front of the Defendant, and was driven voluntarily according to the F, the Police Station at the Gyeongnam Police Station at the Gyeongnam Police Station, and there is considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant was driving while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and drinking at the Defendant’s entrance, and the rain distance at the time of walking is not clear, and there is a reasonable reason to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was requested from 18:24 to 18:57 on the same day to comply with the alcohol level four times in total from the border G belonging to the above F, but did not comply with it without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs concerning refusal to measure drinking;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., the fact that the defendant repents his/her misconduct and has no record of having been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment for the same kind of crime);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( repeatedly considering the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. The part concerning dismissal of prosecution under Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on February 7, 2014, around 18:05, the Defendant: (b) on the street in front of C main points located at the Gyeongdo-si, the Gyeongnam Police Station, the Gyeongnam-gu, the Police Station Gyeongnam-gu, which was called by the Defendant on February 7, 2014, found the facts of the instant case to be checked by the Defendant and demanded the Defendant to take a alcohol test; and (c) the Defendant’s name was assigned to the Defendant, and the Defendant was able to check the case to the parking control personnel I, and accordingly, he did not fit the Defendant’s roadway. The Defendant did not drive the dog, why he does not drive, and the horses do not fit the vehicular road without driving.”

2. We examine the judgment, which is the Criminal Act.