Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and 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

[Criminal Power] On April 21, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Daejeon District Court to a fine of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. On July 10, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million as the same crime in the same court.

【Criminal Facts】

On September 17, 2019, at around 22:30, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol in a manner of inserting the influence of alcohol in five times from around 22:03 to 22:30 on the front of the Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon Police Station D, where the Defendant was in a state of drinking, such as influence of the Defendant’s pedestrian age, heavy face, red, rhym and smelling the smell, etc., and accordingly, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 이유 없이 그 측정을 거부하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, investigation report (report on the circumstances of the drinking driver), control details, and photographs refusing to measure drinking;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty, and 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, Article 60 (3) of the Juvenile Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant did not comply with the measurement of drinking even though there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she had driven alcohol while drinking alcohol.

Considering the risk of drinking driving and the effectiveness of crackdown, the quality of crime is no longer better than the case of general drinking driving.

Defendant has committed a crime again even though he was sentenced to a fine twice due to drinking driving.

However, accidents occur frequently.