A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 14, 2018, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol to the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle at the 1st floor parking lot of the 1st floor of the Belgium apartment of the Namyang-ju Police Station, which is located within the police box of the Namyang-ju Police Station, while drinking alcohol at around 03:35 at the center of the Namyang-ju, the Defendant driven the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by drinking alcohol to the Defendant, such as sprinking red on the face, etc.

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 30 minutes in a drinking measuring instrument.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused to take a drinking test and failed to comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A survey report on actual condition and an accident scene photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the circumstances of drivers at home;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the same Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The Defendant had the record of being punished twice or more due to drinking driving even before the reason for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act. In particular, in 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to suspended sentence due to refusal of drinking measurement identical to the instant crime.

It seems that the accident occurred while the defendant moved to the underground parking lot of the apartment, such as the defendant's change of the defendant, through the substitute engineer, and returned the substitute engineer who had no parking place, and is driving mixedly.

However, in addition to the fact that the illegality of the crime of violation of traffic laws (e.g., the refusal of alcohol measurement), such as the crime of this case, is derived from the fact that the police officer thereafter refused to comply with the request for measurement of alcohol alcohol by the police officer.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the contents of the prior suit by the defendant have a significant impact on the possibility of criticism against the crime of this case.

However, the defendant is also the defendant, along with the aforementioned drinking driving process.