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 this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

around 00:50 on October 25, 2016, the Defendant, “2016 Highest 2706,” went beyond the central line on the road in front of the peace church located in the 115-ro street of Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, and was subject to the control of drinking from Daman on the ground that he was subject to the control of drinking from Daman on the roads of the peace church located in the 115-ro street.

The defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by the defendant from the above D in C District on the same day, such as that the defendant was in an inaccurate state of drinking, walking in an inaccurate manner, red and breathous state of drinking, etc.

There is a considerable reason to determine a person who is required to take a alcohol test by inserting the breath of alcohol in a breath of November, 01: refusal to take a first alcohol test; refusal to take a second alcohol test at around 01:24; refusal to take a second alcohol test at around 01:45; and refusal to take a breath of alcohol test at around 01:45.

On March 15, 2017, the Defendant 2017 top 652, the Defendant driven the E Ethmp car at the distance of about 20km from the front of the Daejeon Terminal located in the Tae-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong

Summary of Evidence

"2016 Highest 2706"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Investigation report (verification as to whether the other party principle of Disturbance has been notified to a policeman);

1. The defendant asserts that his refusal by the defendant is not unlawful, since he was illegally arrested at the control point and forced to take a drinking test.

However, in full view of the above evidence, the crackdown police officers reported that the vehicles of the defendant's driver have continued to go beyond the center line, and demanded the defendant to stop the vehicle and take a drinking test, but they failed to comply with the drinking test for about 10 minutes by exceeding 20 meters from the site due to the doping that the defendant made telephone calls, and the summary of the crime.