A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2020. 3. 14. 03:18경 술에 취한 상태에서 B 에쿠스 승용차량을 운전하여 평택시 팽성읍 이하 상호불상의 식당 앞 도로에서부터 평택시 팽성읍 계양로 370에 있는 K6(캠프험프리) 미군부대 도두리게이트 안까지 진행하게 되었고, 그곳에서 K6(캠프험프리) 미군 헌병대로부터 112신고를 받고 출동한 평택경찰서 C지구대 경위 D이 술 냄새가 나고, 안면이 붉고, 보행상태가 비틀거리는 상태에 있어 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있는 피고인에게 5분 간격으로 약 3회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 피고인에게 요청하였으나, 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하며 이에 응하지 아니하였다.

As a result, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's demand for a drinking test without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the handling of 112 Reports on circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, investigation reports, notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, copy of the ledger of usage of a drinking measuring instrument, and the 112 Report Report;

1. Article 148-2(2) and Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act regarding criminal facts and Articles 148-2(2) and 44(2) of the Act on the Selection of Criminal Crimes, the Defendant recognizes and reflects the criminal act, the vehicle is being disposed, the Defendant’s family members, including his/her mother, are to provide support, and there is no extenuating circumstance.

However, it is highly necessary to strictly punish a drunk driving because it is a very high risk of infringing on the life and property of others as well as himself/herself. However, even though it was required to take a alcohol test due to considerable reasons for such a drunk driving, the refusal of it can be assessed equally.