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

On March 11, 2016, the Defendant received a request for the measurement of alcohol from the Manyang Police Station D Technicians affiliated with the Manyang Police Station D Boxes and the Inspector F to measure alcohol in light of the circumstances at around 10:15, 201.

On the same day, at around 09:47, the Defendant reported 112 that H blue cargo in front of G apartment in light of the same day, and on around 09:555, the Defendant was found to have driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, snow, booming, and raining, at around 10:15, 10:26, 10:38 times in light of the same day, the Defendant failed to comply with the alcohol alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds, even though he was required to comply with the alcohol measurement by inserting the breath to put the breath of alcohol in a breath of alcohol, and to comply with the alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Investigation report (any circumstance concerning drinking at the time of arresting a suspect in the act of committing an offense);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (a photograph of the status of refusal of measurement);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of penalty, 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. Judgment on the assertion of defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation and lecture attendance order or community service order

1. The main point of the argument is that the police officer's arrest of the defendant in the act of committing an act of committing an offense is illegal, since it is not clear that the police officer could not be seen as having been exposed to time when a considerable time has already passed after drinking, and that he/she was driving.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant could have easily known that he/she was driving and that he/she was under the influence of alcohol in light of the Defendant’s blood color, words, etc.