A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

"2018 Highest 1590" Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of CDa-May Road.

On February 13, 2018, the Defendant driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, snicking, snicking on the face, snicking, E-Road in front of the apartment unit D in Gyeonggi-do on February 13, 2018, while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol from the slope F belonging to the Eastern Police Station.

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand for responding to the measurement of drinking in a manner that puts the divers of drinking over about 40 minutes into the divers of drinking.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 음주 측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

On April 30, 2018, the Defendant driven a Dap Gap Do-dong without the driver’s license, from a place where it is impossible to know the place that does not exceed half-meter-dong-dong-dong-dong-si in the event of Gyeonggi-do Gyeonggi-do-si, Chungcheongnam-do-si, Chungcheongnam-do-si to the point where it is about 70 km-do-do-ri Busan-do-do-do-ri-do-do-do-do-ri-do-do-do-ri-do-do-do-ri-do-do-do

Summary of Evidence

"2018 Highest 1590"

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The circumstances of the driver’s statement, investigation report (the situation report of the driver in charge), investigation report (the beginning of the beginning), data on field video control, investigation report (the summary of the control), investigation report (the opinion of the investigator), and investigation report (the Defendant’s first drinking measurement was obstructive to repulmonary measurement due to the mold, and the subsequent measurement was conducted by subtracting the clibr, but did not have the wind on the drinking measuring instrument.

However, according to each of the above evidence, it is not deemed that the pulmonary measurement was hindered before the breath of the breath before the breath of the breath, and that there was no special obstacle to the breath measurement even after the breath of the breath, and rather, the Defendant intentionally made the breath of the breath and the