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

On March 5, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 by the Gwangju District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

At around 21:00 on August 10, 2020, the Defendant driven a e-sports vehicle from the “C” parking lot located in the Nanyang-gun B to the front of the same Do through approximately 7 km from the “C” parking lot located in the same Donyang-gun B, and the vehicle was returned to the vehicle.

The Defendant, at around 21:36 on the same day, had a reasonable ground to recognize that he was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol, setting a red light on the face, and did not comply with the police officer’s demand for the measurement of alcohol without justifiable grounds, such as having been requested three times at intervals of G details belonging to the Fabs of the Fabain Police Station dispatched to the site and at intervals of five minutes from slope H.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on internal investigation (C CCTV confirmation, driver's specific relation);

1. A traffic accident report;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. 112 reported case handling table;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, repeated statements and investigation reports (criminal records confirmation reports) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (2) and (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty for a crime;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even though the Defendant had a record of being punished for a drunk driving, has committed the instant crime again, and the quality of the offense of refusing to take a drunk test is not good, so there is a high possibility of criticism against the Defendant.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime, such as refusing to take a so-called drinking test for the reason that the instant vehicle was returned, and 112 reported, and the police officer was dispatched.