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

On June 18, 2016, at around 01:28, the Defendant was required to comply with the drinking test by inserting the breath of alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument three-minutes over three minutes, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, and drinking, drinking, from E, by a police box belonging to the police station of the gysium in the gysium, and a police officer.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused this and 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. Report on the statement of the status of a drinking driver, and the written report on the status of a drinking driver;

1. Each investigation report (the use of a reduction machine at the time of the enemy launch and the situation at the time of detection);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger on the use of drinking meters;

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 200Du148, Jan. 1, 201>

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( repeatedly considering the grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. Order to attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;