A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On November 6, 2017, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (Non-licenseless Driving) driving a G FR truck without a driver’s license within a about 2 km section from the front of the office of the Defendant in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si to the front of the E convenience store located in D, via the road in front of the E-mail located in D, at around 11:30 on November 6, 2017.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of drinking), Defendant 1 driven the above cargo vehicle without a driver’s license at the time of the above paragraph (1), and arrived at the road before the house of H located in the above F, and was reported to drive the vehicle after going through the road before the house of H located in the above F, and was called after receiving a report, Defendant 2 driven the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling the Defendant, rhyming, rhhing, and rhinginginging the horses on the face from the justm of the police box belonging to the Kimpo Police Station.

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand for responding to the measurement of drinking in a manner that puts the divers of drinking over about 40 minutes into the divers of drinking.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol testing without justifiable grounds, such as avoiding inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument.

[Defendant and defense counsel] The Defendant and defense counsel did not drive under the influence of alcohol and driven under the influence of alcohol.

The crime is denied to the effect that the police was in a state with no reasonable reason to determine the person, and that the police demanded an unfair drinking test.

However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, especially the witness H's legal statement and video CDs taken by witnesses, the defendant was snickly snicked at the time, and the defendant was snickly snicked to the extent that he does not have a conversation, snickly snickly, and snicked on the face to the extent that he does not have a conversation.

prescribed in subsection (1) of this section.

Mably recognized.

The defendant and defense counsel are without merit.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;