도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On September 19, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, and on December 22, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 10 million for the same offense in the same court.
1. Around 14:30 on October 5, 2019, the Defendant was driving a vehicle of F-A-hurd-hurd-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-
2. Around 14:36 of the same day, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the noise measurement) and the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the noise measurement) received a report from 112 that “A man, who is not in the direction of a restaurant, drives a drinking-free vehicle on the road in the condition of alcohol and parked on the road and parked on the vehicle.” On two occasions, the Defendant was demanded to comply with a drinking measurement by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument three times from 14:51 to 15:02 of the same day, on the grounds that the Defendant was deemed to have driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol and drinking distance from the traffic of the Jancheon Police Station and the G G security H, etc., dispatched to the Defendant.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, who was demanded to comply with a drinking test by the foregoing method, expressed explicitly his/her intent to refuse a drinking test, such as “the police is not an intervention,” “the police does not drink but do not drive,” “the police does not drink,” “I do not stop driving,” and “I do not have any fact of driving,” and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.
As a result, the Defendant violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant's legal statement H and I are the police of the defendant.