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

On March 20, 2016, around 20:10 on March 20, 2016, the Defendant driven a DNA car in front of the window C, Changwon-si, while drinking on the front of the window C, and was parked, to measure drinking, the Defendant was employed as the F Office of the Changwon Police Station in the window of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, on March 20, 2016.

On March 20, 2016, from around 20:46 to 21:06 of the same day, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, inaccurate, and sprinking, drinking, sprinking, sprinking, red, and sprinking, by a police officer G belonging to the aforesaid police stationF, on three occasions, from around 30 minutes to around 21:06 of the same day.

Even though there is a considerable reason to determine a person, he/she was requested to comply with the measurement of drinking by inserting the breath in a breath measuring instrument, he/she did not comply with a police officer's request for measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with H;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs refusing measurement;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime by repeating the fact that he/she had been sentenced to a fine three times due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

However, the fact that the defendant is under the late charge of the facts charged, the sale of the vehicle of this case, etc. does not violate the road traffic laws and regulations again, and the defendant has been punished for the same crime of the same kind.