A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement of drinking level) on August 23, 2014, the Defendant reported to the effect that the former Defendant driven DNY125 dNY under the influence of alcohol at the Ulsan-dong Police Station C District District of the Ulsan-dong Police Station located in Ulsan-gu from around 02:0 on August 23, 2014 to around 02:36, and the former Defendant reported to the effect that he had driven DNY125 dNY under the influence of alcohol. In addition, the Defendant’s face is red, and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Defendant was driving under the influence of drinking, such as smelling in the entrance, and so on, he did not comply with the alcohol level without justifiable grounds, despite being requested to comply

2. On September 15, 2014, the Defendant driven DNY YOba in the section of about 100 meters in front of the 100th century in front of the 100th century, under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.135% under the influence of alcohol on September 21, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement of the police concerning F (the admissibility of evidence is recognized in accordance with Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act);

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, each report on the proper driving of a drinking driver, and the ledger on the use of a d

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of crime, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusing to measure sound), Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of running sound) of the Road Traffic Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do134, Jan. 1, 201; 201Do114, Jan. 2, 201

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (recognition of the reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act.