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

피고인은 2014. 7. 19. 01:48경 광주 서구 C에 있는 ‘D 유료주차장’ 앞 도로에서 위 주차장까지 약 6m 구간을 술에 취한 상태에서 E 포터Ⅱ 화물차를 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 광주서부경찰서 교통조사계 경위 F로부터 같은 날 02:05경, 02:24경, 02:35경, 02:51경 약 46분 동안 네 차례에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정 요구를 받고도, 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하면서 이를 회피하여, 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Reporting on a request for a measurement of drinking alcohol;

1. Investigation report (the reason why a video is taken);

1. Results of the reproduction and viewing of video CDs in this Act;

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under the main sentence of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act that bear litigation costs

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the police officer called up at the time was accompanied by the investigative agency under illegal arrest, first of all, led the defendant to the regular zone in the form of voluntary driving, and there is no notification to the defendant that he could refuse to accompany at the time or there is no document prepared on voluntary driving. Thus, this constitutes a case of illegally arresting the defendant due to voluntary driving which does not meet lawful requirements, and therefore, the request for the alcohol alcohol measurement of this case was made in the above illegal arrest condition, and thus, it cannot be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning the refusal of the alcohol measurement.

However, the evidence stated in the judgment.