A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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 January 16, 2016, around 09:50 on January 16, 2016, the Defendant driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as the exposure to drinking at the D police station belonging to Seoul Song-gu, Seoul, to a drinking reduction level, red, and unstable walking.

Although there is a reasonable reason to determine the person, the police officer did not comply with a request for a measurement of drinking without a justifiable reason even though he/she was requested to respond to the measurement of drinking four times over about 30 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D's testimony and witness E's partial testimony;

1. Part of a protocol concerning the suspect interrogation of the defendant;

1. The Defendant’s assertion of video CDs against which measurement was refused indicates that he/she would respond to the fourth demand for measurement from the beginning to the control police officer, and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that he/she was unable to take the fourth demand for measurement, but he/she did not intend to refuse the measurement merely because he/she was unable to sufficiently hidden due to an Alpharical marmical perception.

However, according to the witness D’s testimony and video taken at the time, ① in the event that the level of alcohol content is measured properly and the degree of alcohol content falls short of the level of 2 seconds, the message “B” appears on the instrument board. ② The Defendant explicitly refused the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking at intervals of 10 minutes, but it was found in approximately 3 seconds of the respiratory measuring instrument at intervals of 10 minutes at intervals of 10 minutes at intervals of 4 minutes at intervals of 3 seconds at the respiratory measuring instrument, but it was not proper, so the Defendant showed the signal, ③ In this case, the Defendant showed that the signal was shown to the Defendant, and “Ahhhhhhhhhhhh.”

In this regard, the police officer continued to show that the Defendant was “unclaimed” to the police officer, and the police officer did not show that the Defendant was “unclaimed” to the police officer, and the police officer showed that the method of measurement is shown to the Defendant.