A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Punishment of the crime

[2014 Highest 641] On March 11, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch, etc., and on June 17, 2010, the above summary order became final and conclusive by the same court upon receiving a summary order of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On February 16, 2014, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.137% of blood alcohol concentration, driven approximately 1 km from the front day of the cross-unfolding chilling house located in Sinung-si, Sinung-si to the front day of the same city-ro 19-ro 42-ro, as BMW car.

[2014 Highest 1882]

1. On April 8, 2014, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at around 04:10, the Defendant driven approximately KRW 700 meters from the roads front of the D frequency set in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul, to the roads front of the ridge set forth in 1192-3, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Nowon-gu, 1192-3.

2. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of Drinking Measures) by the Defendant was requested to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol measuring instruments three times from 04:19 to 04:39 of the same day on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, from a policeman F of the House E Zone E Zone of the Busan, Gyeongcheon Police Station, who was dispatched to the above place after receiving a report from 112 on the frequency specified in paragraph (1) that the Defendant went on and taken a vehicle without paying the drinking value after drinking alcohol at the time of the time specified in paragraph (1). However, even though the Defendant was requested to comply with a drinking test by inserting the drinking measuring instruments for three times from 04:19 to 04:39 of the same day without justifiable grounds, he did not comply with the request of a police official for a drinking test by refusing it.

Summary of Evidence

[2014 Highest 641]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report on the driver and the report on detection of the driver;

1. Previous convictions in its ruling: Criminal history records and other inquiries (A) and Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004 High Court Decision 6843.