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

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

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a BM5 car.

On June 9, 2019, around 18:30 on June 18:30, 2019, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol in a manner of inserting alcohol measuring instruments over several occasions from around 19:03 to 19:27 on the same day, on the ground that there were reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, string, drinking, drinking, etc., from the police officers belonging to the D District Unit of the old Police Station D, which called out after receiving 112 reports that “B vehicle would have taken an accident and escaped.”

Nevertheless, the defendant, by refusing to put the whole breath in a drinking measuring instrument, failed to comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, report on the control of drinking driving, and ledger of the use of a drinking measuring instrument;

1. Report on internal investigation by each police: Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on “on-site conditions, etc.” (including attached photographs) and “ on-site accidents”

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; Act No. 16037, Jun. 25, 2019);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant's reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and order to attend a meeting of the police officer's request for a drinking test, the defendant's age, occupation, and occupation are asserting that the defendant's heavy warning is required because the criminal liability does not be light when considering the fact that the defendant's repeated request for a drinking test was rejected by police officers, that there was three times of drinking driving skills, and that the pedestrian pension was damaged during drinking driving.