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

On June 28, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 7 million from the Seoul Northern District Court due to drinking driving, etc., and on March 6, 2014, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving by receiving a summary order of KRW 3 million from the Seoul Northern District Court on March 6, 2014.

On January 23, 2016, at around 01:47, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol in front of Seogugu, Seo-gu, Daegu, and driving D’s Hamcom car, and was divingd at the driver’s seat with the driver’s moving of the vehicle, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol by a slope F affiliated with the police box of the police station, which was dispatched upon receipt of a report, in an inaccurate, baling, and balinging on the face of the Defendant.

Although there are reasonable grounds to determine the person, the defendant demanded the measurement of drinking over about 30 minutes, the defendant did not comply with it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. To refrain from recording the measuring instruments for drinking;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of the order to attend a lecture and the order to attend a community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not refuse to take a drinking test on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant received an operation to control one half of the pulmonary separately from the pulmonary evidence and received an operation to control the pulmonary amount; (b) the interview officer’s recommendation was merely an interviewer’s 1/3 residual load and take the pulmonary medicine absorption; and (c) the Defendant’s pulmonary meteorological absorption on the part of the pulmonary function disorder did not lead to

However, according to the evidence adopted earlier, the Defendant is at the crosswalk of the road along which vehicles and pedestrians walk.