A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 20:50 on February 25, 2012, was in compliance with a drinking test in the manner of promptly putting in the drinking measuring unit for about 30 minutes from the Jeju East Police Station, where the drinking test was conducted during the drinking test, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling in the front of the Orari-gu, Orari-gu, Orari-gu, Orari-si, while driving a C-E-E-E-E-E-E-car from the front of the Orari-gu, Orari-dong, the state of walking in the state of drinking, blind, red, and red, making a red reaction with the drinking reduction, etc., but did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, records on the use of a drinking measuring instrument, relevant photographs, and investigation reports (general);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act ( repeatedly considering the favorable circumstances);

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant did not respond to a drinking measuring instrument despite the police officer’s failure to faithfully perform so that the alcohol level was not measured, and thus, the Defendant did not refuse to take a drinking test.

2. The pulmonary measuring instrument is conducted in such a way that a driver conceals the pulmonary measuring instrument, and this is essential to voluntarily cooperate with the driver. Therefore, the driver is demanded to take a breath test from a police officer.