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

On June 4, 2014, around 04:27, the Defendant was on the street in front of the 64-8 Kan-gu Manyang-si, Annyang-si, the Defendant failed to comply with a police officer’s demand for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, even though it was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting the drinking measuring instrument three minutes in the form of drinking, such as making a drinking at the Defendant’s entrance, smelling at the C Zone Ra of the Ynyangan Police Station C Zone D, which was dispatched after receiving a report from 112 that there is a vehicle, and making it difficult for the Defendant to recognize that he was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking at the Defendant’s entrance, drinking at the front of the 112-year Man-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-si, Annyang-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs at the enforcement;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment or Imprisonment);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Even though there are two occasions the past records of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, considering the fact that the crime of this case was committed at the same time, it is reasonable to impose a penalty on the defendant. However, considering the fact that the crime is against the punishment, the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment other than the fine, and the living environment, etc., the punishment