When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On March 20, 2018, the Defendant driven a dump motor vehicle in the name of the Defendant in front of the Jincheon apartment, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gu, Jincheon-do, 2018, while driving the C dump motor vehicle under the name of the Defendant, and driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as the following: (a) the Defendant’s smelling, drinking alcohol, drinking alcohol, and red color.

In other words, even though there is a reasonable ground to recognize “breathly” as being required to comply with the measurement of alcohol by inserting the breath in a breath, it did not comply with a police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol without justifiable grounds by refusing it over three occasions, such as 20:39, 20:50, 21:02 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. A report on internal investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Attachment to dental X-ray photographs);

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 and 44 (2) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bear the costs of lawsuit

1. The summary of the assertion was that the Defendant, upon a police officer’s request for the measurement of drinking alcohol, put the measuring instruments into the breath, but the Defendant was in a short condition of normal repulmon and in particular, did not properly measure the breath in a state where the breath for the isolation at the time, and there was no fact that the Defendant did not comply with the request for the measurement of drinking.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant refused the measurement of drinking as stated in the facts constituting the crime.

Therefore, it is true.