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

On April 19, 2016, when the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and continued to drive a rocketing car in front of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D, while driving it on the road, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and snicking on the face, from the police officers belonging to the Gwangjin-gu Police Station traffic safety department, which was under the control of drinking driving, and driving it on the road, and accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with a request for the measurement of drinking by a police officer without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant was requested to comply with a drinking measuring method by inserting the whole laver on four occasions at the control site (round 10:56, around 200:56, around 301:06, around 301:16, around 401:26, around 401:26).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. Records of enforcement of E preparation;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking driving, and report on the state of drinking drivers;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning visual video CDs in control;

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 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the preceding paragraph shall not apply) of the suspended execution;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Provide community service and attend lectures, arguing to the purport that the defendant does not have any clear refusal to take a drinking level when the defendant requests the measurement of the second drinking alcohol, and that the traffic control police officer's refusal to take a drinking level was arrested, and thus, does not constitute the refusal to take a measurement under the Road Traffic Act.

The Defendant stated that he had driven alcohol at the time from the investigation stage to this court, and according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Defendant was unable to properly hold the body at the time when the control police officer demanded a first and second-lane drinking test, and was in an uncertain state, and the police officer demanded a drinking test and sold.