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 June 25, 2016, as stated in the indictment on June 24, 2016, the Defendant appears to be a clerical error in writing, and the Defendant did not interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of his/her right to defense, and thus the Defendant’s correction ex officio.

22:56 under the influence of alcohol, while driving BMW car at a level of 200 meters from the Do in the vicinity of Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul to the 33rd-ro, Seongdong-gu. On the ground that there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the bM car was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking in the Defendant’s entrance, drinking on the face, and drinking on the face, etc., after receiving a report, the police officer, etc. belonging to the Seongdong-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Sungdong Police Station, who was dispatched, was under the influence of alcohol, and did not comply with the request of a

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the police interrogation protocol of the defendant

1. In light of the control manual, the results of the drinking driving control report, the statement of the circumstances of the drinking driver [the defendant alleged to the effect that he did not have the awareness that he was unable to take a drinking test because he lost his normal ability to make a judgment at the time, or that he was in the state of mental disorder. However, the defendant stopped the vehicle on the road at a considerable distance, and the defendant voluntarily made a telephone call to the driver on the road, and the police officer specifically stated the driving circumstances to the effect that "the defendant was carrying the vehicle because he was not aware of the position but moved the vehicle," at the control site, he could have known that he was driving at least at the time and the police officer was demanding a drinking test. Accordingly, the above argument is not accepted.] The application of the law.

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. To take lectures;