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

On May 29, 2015, around 21:35, the Defendant discovered that police officers belonging to the Namwon Police Station are under drinking control while driving his Bbealy cruise on the road in front of the Donam-si, Namwon-si, and attempted to flee from the said vehicle, but was exposed to C during the aforementioned police station.

Since then, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol in the defendant's entrance and snicking on the face, and thus, the defendant refused to take a drinking test by police officers without justifiable grounds despite being requested by the above C to respond to a drinking test over about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Each report on internal investigation:

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing drinking photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( Taking into account the favorable conditions of sentencing among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors are repeatedly taken into account for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. is that the defendant had had had had a history of punishment for driving under drinking twice again despite the fact that the defendant had been punished for driving under drinking again, and the defendant was found to have attempted to flee for the purpose of avoiding the control of drinking driving, and refused to lawfully demand the measurement of drinking by the police officer even after the defendant was lawfully demanded by the police officer.

However, it is advantageous to the defendant that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the defendant is currently aged 68 years old, and the defendant has no special criminal record other than twice of fine.