A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 March 19, 2016, at around 23:45, the Defendant, while driving a car under the influence of alcohol concentration (Refusal of measurement) in blood on the front side of the SPPP 252, a car was driven in the state of under the influence of alcohol concentration in the blood on the road before the FP 252, and caused a traffic accident where the car was driven by shocking the modern rail of the above reclamation site.

Defendant 1 driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling at Defendant’s entrance at the Defendant’s face, after having received the aforementioned report of a traffic accident, from E and F of the police box belonging to the Steering Police Station D, who was dispatched to the scene.

Even though there are reasonable grounds to determine a person, he/she was requested to comply with the measurement of drinking by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument three times for about 30 minutes, he/she did not comply with the measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. On-site photographs of traffic accidents;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (in cases of refusal to measure drinking alcohol and refusal to affix a seal, such as a photograph and confirmation letter);

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. Determination of the assertion of defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as the observation of protection and order to attend lectures, and order to provide community service

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant did not receive notice of the so-called "norm" principle at the time of arrest of a flagrant offender, and the act of failing to comply with the request for measurement of drinking in an illegal arrest may not constitute a crime of refusal to

2. According to each of the evidence mentioned above, the witness F was called to the scene of the above traffic accident and demanded the Defendant to take a drinking alcohol test. However, the Defendant did not present his/her identification card, and the Defendant was able to take a measurement by himself/herself at the police box without presenting his/her identification card, and the above F was an offender in the act of driving alcohol.