The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Interpretation of the misunderstanding of the legal doctrine as to “not less than twice” under Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter “instant provision”) includes the number of times of refusal to drive alcohol or to measure alcohol before June 25, 2019, which is the enforcement date of the instant provision, is based on the principle of no prosecution without prosecution and the amendment of Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018.”

(B) The lower court’s judgment that applied Article 148-2(1) of the Road Traffic Act to the Defendant, including the previous conviction before June 25, 2019, has affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine. However, the lower court’s punishment (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspension of execution, 40 hours of law driving, and 120 hours of social service, are too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant, who alleged unfair sentencing, was absent from awareness that he/she was not an engineer on his/her behalf, refusing to measure drinking; (b) the number of criminal records calculated by the frequency of illegal sentencing was old; and (c) the Defendant’s sentence seems to be excessive when comparing the Defendant’s refusal to measure drinking alcohol before the amendment and the person punished for drinking alcohol driving.

2. Determination

A. The principle of non-performance of punishment on the part of the assertion of legal principles is a principle that applies only to acts conducted after the enforcement and cannot be applied retroactively to acts conducted before the enforcement (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2006HunBa94, 2007HunBa19, Nov. 27, 2008). The provision of this case aims to punish a person who violates the prohibition of drinking driving repeatedly, as well as the aggravation of punishment, and the repetition of repeated meaning as well as the aggravation of punishment. However, the provision of this case is clearly subject to punishment not only before the enforcement following the amendment, but also after the enforcement following the amendment, so long as it is obvious that the provision of this case is subject to punishment, it cannot be deemed a violation of the principle of non-performance of punishment, and the Supreme Court has already made the Gu.