A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten 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 October 2, 2018, at around 05:20, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument three times between 05:33 of the same day and 05:45 of the same day, and there were reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling on the face, etc., from E by the superintendent of the police box of the Seongdong-nam Police Station D Police Station affiliated with the police box of the Sungnam Police Station, while driving the C-learning car under the influence of alcohol.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하다가 ‘세 번 이상은 안 해’라며 명시적으로 거부하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each statement;

1. The actual condition survey report;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A report on investigation and internal investigation;

1. The report on the results of the drinking driving control, the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, the record of a drinking measuring instrument, and the notification of the completion of correction;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on video CDs and defense counsel's assertion that the defendant did not explicitly refuse to take a drinking, and the request for a drinking test was made three times over twelve minutes, and was made in violation of the guidelines for traffic control by the National Police Agency.

According to each of the above evidence, the Defendant was found to have been subject to the alcohol alcohol measurement due to the result of the initial alcohol reduction, and was found to have failed to comply with the police officer’s status. The Defendant respondeded to the second measurement, but failed to take a measurement on the ground that he did not enter the air above 0.9L, etc. The Defendant demanded the second measurement, but the Defendant did not comply with the measurement, and the Defendant refused to take a measurement by the police.