A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 August 20, 2016, the Defendant: (a) was driving under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, on the front side of “D” in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si on August 20, 2016; (b) was driven by GFD car in F owned by F, which was parked in, and was under the influence of F, for reporting to F to F, 112; and (c) was in the said restaurant; (d) was in the course of entering the said restaurant upon receiving a traffic accident report; (e) was inaccurate, unbrepted, and Hapo-gu, the face was red; and (e) was given a statement that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

Since there are reasonable grounds to recognize it, it was demanded three times to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument over about 30 minutes.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for alcohol testing in a manner that does not enter the breath measuring instrument, without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness F and J;

1. Notification of the result of the crackdown on the driving of alcohol, the statement report on the situation of the driver under the influence of alcohol, and the ledger of the use of the measuring instrument for alcohol (the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the defendant to drive a vehicle E after drinking alcohol (hereinafter "the vehicle of this case"), and thus, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol.

there was no reasonable ground to determine the person, and the defendant was driving a person while he was under the influence of alcohol.

Even if the place of operating the instant vehicle is used as an exclusive restaurant parking lot, it cannot be deemed to be a road under the Road Traffic Act, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have driven while driving the instant vehicle. However, according to the aforementioned evidence, the following circumstances, i.e., the F consistently takes one’s vehicle while driving the instant vehicle at a D restaurant parking lot around August 20, 2016, and the Defendant asks the Defendant to handle the insurance.