A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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 July 4, 2018, the Defendant was required to respond to a drinking test for about 23 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a halog car on the front of the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-do-si, the Defendant, from E, a police officer belonging to the D Zone District of the Guri Police Station, while driving a halog car on the front of the Gyeonggi-do-si, the Defendant was in compliance with the drinking test for about 23 minutes.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 할 뿐 이에 응하지 아니하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant did not respond to a request for a sobreath test by a police officer, who has a considerable reason to recognize that the defendant is under influence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. On-site photographs;

1. An accident site photograph;

1. Written transmission (two CD-Famp and video images);

1. Notice of completion of correction;

1. The user ledger of each drinking-water measuring instrument;

1. A manual on the use of the alcohol measuring instrument (based on the crime of alcohol: according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant caused an accident involving a vehicle in the front signal while driving the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and the police officers dispatched thereafter have the performance of accurately measuring the blood alcohol concentration of the person under the influence of alcohol; the pertinent drinking measuring instrument was used before and after July 4, 2018 when the crime of this case was committed, and there was no special problem (Evidence No. 18 of the Evidence List No. 18). The defendant demanded the defendant to respond to the alcohol measuring four times every time on and after the 23 minutes after the crime of this case (the evidence No. 18 of this case No. 18). The defendant, each time, was engaged in an act of injecting the respiratory in the alcohol measuring instrument, but the relevant instrument did not contain the pulmonology to the extent that the alcohol measuring instrument was recognizable, thereby making it difficult to properly measure the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant.

At the time of these circumstances, the defendant is the defendant.