[Judgment of the court below]

1. On November 22, 2014, around 23:15, the Defendant was exposed to the police officer belonging to the E District, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she driven a DNA car in front of the Adong, while driving a DNA car in front of the Adong, with a red, light, and walking, and was under the influence of alcohol.

On November 22, 2014, from around 23:35 to November 23, 2014, the Defendant continued to comply with a request for a drinking test by approximately 32 minutes on four occasions from Police Officers in the E zone located in Seosan-si G from around 23:00 to November 23, 2014, without justifiable grounds.

[2015 Height62]

2. On January 23, 2015, at around 19:50, the Defendant driven a DNA car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.058% at a section of about 1km from the front of the promotion distance to the front road of the rural construction located in the Dosan-si, Seosan-si.

Summary of Evidence

[2015 Highest 45] (The Daejeon District Public Prosecutor's Office at the District Public Prosecutor's Office in Daejeon, 2015 type No. 347)

1. Legal statement of the witness H and F;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, the report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, the photographs refusing to measure, and the next inquiry [2] (In Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, Supreme Court Decision 832 Decided July 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2015No. 832];

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Notification of the results of drinking driving control, details of inquiries about the management of reports on the detection of drinking alcohol, reports on the circumstantial statements of the driver involved in drinking alcohol, reports on the detection of the driver involved in drinking alcohol, reports on the detection of the driver involved in drinking alcohol, and application of statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusing to measure sound), Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of driving sound), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

2. From among concurrent crimes, the sentencing is based on Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (to the extent that the punishment is added up to the maximum period of the punishment as provided for in the Act on the Violation of the Road Traffic (Refusal of Measurement) with heavy penalty) of the Criminal Act.