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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2019, at around 12:20, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument four minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 4 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 15 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 3 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 1 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 1 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 1 minutes more than 2 minutes more than 10 minutes more than 1 minutes more than 1 minutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, stating that “I would have caused a big mistake,” did not comply with a police officer’s request for a sobreath test without a justifiable reason, by keeping the sobreath in hand the measuring instrument, avoiding it through the method of making the concealment only without any measuring instrument and hiding it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. The actual condition of traffic accidents;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to notify the results of drinking driving control;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018) concerning criminal facts (the point of refusing to measure sound content, the choice of imprisonment)

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the fact that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of punishment for drunk driving, the fact that he/she caused the instant traffic accident due to drunk driving, and the Defendant’s confession, and the fact that he/she is against the Defendant, and the motive and circumstance of the instant crime, are favorable circumstances, such as the motive and circumstance of the instant crime.