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

On October 17, 2018, at around 22:45, the Defendant avoided the demand of the police officer to respond to the alcohol alcohol measurement for about 15 minutes, and failed to comply with the police officer’s blood alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds, even though he/she avoided the demand of the police officer to respond to the alcohol measurement for about 15 minutes, on the roads of the Dong-gu Gwangju-gu B apartment Cdong, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and reported that the Defendant’s DoM5 car was suspected to be a drunk driving, from the slope E belonging to the Gwangju Dong Police Station, which called the Defendant’s Do-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver involved in driving and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case by failing to comply with a police officer’s request for lawful drinking test without any justifiable reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act shall not constitute the crime of this case;

Furthermore, if the defendant has long history, he was punished by a fine for four times prior to the crime of this case or for drinking driving, etc.

Even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant and his defense counsel, it is difficult to choose a fine up to this point due to punishment corresponding to the defendant's act.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive for crime, circumstances after crime, etc. shall be determined as per the disposition.