A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 30, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Incheon District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

The defendant is a person who drives a Hedi vehicle B.

On May 21, 2020, at around 23:50, the Defendant is driving the said car within approximately two kilometers from the back station of the week located in the territory of Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the front road of the building in front of the Gu.

인천 미추홀경찰서 D지구대 순경 E로부터 피고인에게 술 냄새가 나고 눈이 빨갛게 충혈 되고 혀가 꼬여 발음이 부정확한 등 술에 취해 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 같은 날 23:55경부터 다음날 01:10경까지 약 15분간 3회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았으나 이를 회피하여 정당한 이유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정 요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the police of the defendant E in the court;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Previous records before ruling: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records, inquiry reports, attachment of criminal records, and summary orders;

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to two years;

2. Crimes of which the sentencing criteria are not set for each judgment of the scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

3. The crime of this case, which led to the decision of sentence, is justified even though the defendant was under the influence of alcohol while driving a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol even though he was under the influence of alcohol.