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

The Defendant, at around 07:10 on November 4, 2019, 07:0 on the street in front of the Dongdong-si, 2019, was snick in front of the Dong-dong-si, was snicking, was snicking, and the snicking was incorrect, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as the snick distance, etc., the snicking distance was 07:35 on the same day from the C District of the Ansan Police Station C District, and at least two times on the same day at around 07:40 on the same day, the Defendant was requested to take a drinking measurement by inserting the bnick in the manner of inserting the bnick measuring machine at around 07:35 on the same day, but did not comply with the drinking measurement explicitly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), notification on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, report on internal investigation (related to attaching a field photograph), investigation report (Attachment to the ledger using a drinking-driving machine), and investigation report (Attachment to the report on the results of the control of drinking-driving);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (2) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act that refuses to measure the drinking alcohol is a serious crime that ultimately causes difficulties in drinking driving and preventing traffic accidents resulting therefrom by making it difficult to detect the drinking alcohol. Therefore, the quality of the crime is not good.

The attitude of the defendant in the control process is also very good.

The criminal records of drunk driving have already been two times.

However, the defendant shows the appearance of recognizing and opposing his mistake.

Before 2004, the previous convictions are all made before 2004.

This case, such as the defendant's age, character, health status, family relationship, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.