A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that 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 October 26, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Jeonju District Court's military mountain support.

On November 22, 2019, at around 05:05, the Defendant received 112 report to the effect that he was driven by Cworka car at the Defendant’s house located in Seocheon-si B and was dispatched to the site on November 22, 2019, and was demanded by the Defendant to respond to a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument over about 20 minutes, for the reason that the Defendant was deemed to have driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol to the Defendant and snicking on the face of the police box affiliated with the police box of Seocheon-si Police Station D, which called to the site.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정 요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act prohibition provisions at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A photograph of the results of the control of drinking alcohol driving, the notification, the report on the situation of drinking alcohol driving, the report on the situation of drinking alcohol driving, the copy of the register of measuring instruments for drinking alcohol, and the recording of cell phone images;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, inquiry records, and copies of summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (this case’s crime is not good in a situation where it is sufficiently suspected that the defendant was driving under drinking, and thus, it is not good to deem that the defendant refused to take a drinking test. The defendant has the history of being punished for driving under drinking in the past: Provided, That it is against the recognition of the defendant’s criminal act, and it is without any history exceeding the fine, etc.;

1. The suspension of execution is ordered for reasons beyond Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (recognating reasons for discretionary mitigation);