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

On March 29, 2013, around 00:50, the Defendant driven B Coin-do cargo vehicles while drinking alcohol on the road 46-10 Dong-dong 46-10, Mayang-gu, Mayang-gu.

The Defendant was demanded to respond to a drinking test by inserting the whole in breath of around 30 minutes, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the Defendant’s response to the sobannan Police Station C District Rabbr D, which was working on the daily control of drinking, appeared, smelling alcohol, and snicking on the face, and making it possible to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the results of the control of drinking driving and the state of driving under 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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do139, Feb. 1, 201>

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act to attend lectures;