A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

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

On October 18, 2011, at the Incheon District Court, the Defendant was issued a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on March 15, 2019, the Daejeon District Court issued a summary order of two million won for a fine for the same crime.

Around 05:30 on March 11, 2020, the Defendant received a report from the head of Si/Gun/Gu in front of the C convenience store located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and received a notification from 112 to the effect that “the driving of a motor vehicle is suspected of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol”, the Defendant failed to comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting all 15 minutes of alcohol in a drinking measuring instrument twice in a manner of inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument, such as the life safety of the Boan Police Station, which was called at the site, and the blood color of the Defendant from E, who was in the D Zone, and making it an incorrect and inaccurate drinking, and making it a drinking-free.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at home);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports, and application of each relevant summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on the Crime, Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusal of measuring sound content), and choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced several times of drinking driving, and the quality of the instant crime is not good.

However, the defendant's mistake is recognized, and the defendant is more severe than a fine due to drinking driving.