A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 April 13, 2016, at around 16:55, the Defendant driven a c bargaining car on the front side of the Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and was fluencing D and trial expenses with a shocking fluence, and was under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol to the Defendant and fluencing red on the face, upon receiving a report of assault.

There are reasonable grounds to determine a person, and was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting the breathm for about 18 minutes from April 13, 2016 to around 17:44, a total of three times in total.

Nevertheless, the defendant has avoided this and failed to comply with the request for the measurement of drinking without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement concerning a protocol concerning suspect examination of the police against D;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes entered in the ledger for using the measuring instruments for drinking;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the same Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Circumstances favorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of Orders to Provide community service and attend lectures: The Defendant appears to have led to the instant crime and committed his mistake, and the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine yet to be punished: The instant crime was committed in a manner that the police officer’s justifiable demand was not complied with and the quality of the relevant crime is not good; the Defendant was in the course of performing the instant crime while under the influence of alcohol and was punished for expenses during the process of handling the crime; the Defendant was not aware of the punishment while he was punished for drinking around 2015; and the Defendant was not aware of the punishment for drinking around 2015. In full view of other circumstances under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.