A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

[2016 Height2657] Around 16:37 July 17, 2016, the Defendant was driven by the gate pole of the said gate while driving a rocketing and other car in front of the “D” televis in Ulsan-gun C, Ulsan-gun, while drinking the alcohol, and operated voluntarily with G and the said police box belonging to the Ulsan-gu Police Station, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, which was called upon 112 report.

The Defendant, at the above police box, had reasonable grounds to recognize that he was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, smelling red on the face of the Defendant, and driving a bring distance, etc., he was requested from the above G to comply with the breath test by inserting approximately 30 minutes in a breath method. However, the Defendant avoided it in such a way that he did not take part in a breath and does not take part in a normal breath test.

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

[2016 Highest 2975] Around 16:30 on July 17, 2016, the Defendant: (a) operated an E New EEF Laststynel in front of the “Dmostel” operated by the victim H in Ulsan-gun C; (b) followed the victim’s attempt to get out of the above her arm’s length and without taking any measures; and (c) took a bath for the victim to get out of the victim; (d) walking the victim’s course by walking the victim’s walk, walkinging the victim’s back to the left part of the victim’s drinking; and (e) leaving the head to the ground floor by hand; and (e) leaving the victim’s shouldered her head to take approximately two weeks’s treatment.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 Highest 2657]

1. Part of the Defendant’s statement in court - The Defendant denied the instant facts charged if he faithfully responded to the drinking test - According to the evidence duly adopted, including G testimony at the time, which was the police officer at the time, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that he/she failed to comply with the drinking test without justifiable grounds as stated in its reasoning.