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 March 29, 2015, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle at the Southern East-dong Intersection as the wife population at Chicago-si around 18:50 on March 29, 2015, while causing a traffic accident, and thereafter was under investigation, and was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking at the entrance and smelling, the body cannot be accumulated, etc.

There is a considerable reason to recognize it, and even if the police officer of the Dong-dong Police Station requested to take a drinking test from D, he/she did not comply with it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of witness E;

1. The statement of witness F in the fifth public trial record;

1. The circumstantial report and photographs of the driver at the main place of business;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (driving of drinking and refusal of measurement);

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate amount of punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da1248, Apr. 1, 201);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (resumed grounds for reduction of the amount of punishment);

1. Social services and orders to take lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's argument is not guilty, since he paid a traffic accident during driving on the date indicated in the judgment, although he did not drive alcohol after drinking, even though he did not do so, the police officer's refusal to demand the measurement of drinking alcohol unfairly.

2. The offense of violating the Traffic Act on the road is found to have been driven by a driver in a drinking state;

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this court, the Defendant was driving in a drinking state, according to the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant was found to have refused to take a drinking test despite the considerable reason to determine the person; and (b) the fact of driving drinking is not established only when the Defendant

have reasonable grounds to determine that there is a reasonable

recognized.