If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

피고인은 2013. 11. 23. 00:00경 인천 남동구 논현역 부근에 있는 상호불상의 호프집에서 술을 마신 후 C i30 승용차를 운전하여 같은 날 02:10경 시흥시 죽율동에 있는 제2서해안고속도로 41.2km(하) 갓길에서 피고인이 시동을 켠 채로 잠을 자고 있다는 112신고를 받고 출동한 경기지방경찰청 고속도로순찰대 D지구대 소속 경사 E 외 1명에게서 음주운전 혐의로 단속되었다.

Since then, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as fluoring off the questions of slope E at the above control place, fluoring off the nature, fluoring, face, and snow, and fluoring drinking, etc. on the side of the control place, the first measurement request for the first measurement at around 02:20 on the same day, the second measurement request at around 02:30 on the same day, and the third measurement request at intervals of 10 minutes on the same day, but did not comply with such request without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report on the driver and the report on detection of the driver;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and report on the situation of driving under drinking;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of control-related photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for the punishment, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is a case where the defendant refused a police officer's request for a measurement of drinking without any justifiable reason, and the defendant, who is a fire official, refuses a measurement of drinking without any justifiable reason and denies the crime at an investigative agency, etc., and the defendant, while recognizing the crime of this case in this court, runs counter to his mistake.