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 October 24, 2015, at around 11:07, the Defendant driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, such as the testimony of a witness, the driving of a vehicle recorded in CCTV, the Defendant’s walking condition, and the blood and fluoring of the inside of the body of the Defendant, by having reported 112 that there was a person who would avoid disturbance in front of the said 103 House of Pyeongtaek-si (103).

Even though there are reasonable grounds to recognize it three times, it was demanded to comply with the measurement of drinking by inserting the breath of a drinking measuring instrument three times, the breath of the drinking measuring instrument was put into the breath, and the breath of the drinking measuring instrument was removed from the breath of the drinking measuring instrument before reaching 500ml, which is the respiratory volume necessary for the measurement of drinking.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's demand for alcohol testing without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to G;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving a drinking alcohol, the ledger using a drinking measuring instrument, and on-site photographs;

1. Application of video CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

1. The crime is not good as a crime committed by a police officer due to a police officer’s drinking test while drinking his/her behavior at an apartment parking lot during the long-term period of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, and the attitude at an investigation agency after the crime is also bad.

However, the execution of imprisonment is suspended on condition of social service, taking into account the fact that the juvenile protective disposition has yet to be strictly punished, that there is no criminal record other than the juvenile protective disposition and the one-time fine, and that there is a need to provide medical treatment with respect to mental disability.