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

On February 16, 2017, at around 00:19, the Defendant: (a) was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol on the face of the Defendant, she was under the influence of alcohol from the police box of the Ulsan Police Station, which received the report of 112, and called the Defendant at around 10:19, with a view to ascertaining the reason why the Defendant’s husband does not enter the house at the seat of the F Office located in E, by talking about family problems, such as that the Defendant’s husband does not enter the house at the seat of the third day; (b) the Defendant was driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by drinking alcohol; (c) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol from the Defendant, who was a policeman at the police box of the Ulsan Police Station, who called at the scene after receiving the report of 112; and (d) was under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling alcohol on the face of the boom.

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand for responding to the measurement of drinking in a manner that puts the breag into a drinking measuring instrument over about 25 minutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant “I do not have driven a vehicle while drinking saves and drinking saves, and I am to drive a vehicle.”

The expression " by repeating the desire" did not comply with a police officer's request for alcohol testing without good cause by avoiding it.

Summary of Evidence

The defendant's legal statement J's notification of the result of regulating the driving of drinking, the report of the driver's oral statement, the site photo, the copy of the ledger using a drinking measuring instrument, the driver's license ledger of the automobile, and the criminal facts subject to the law of the next time inquiry, and the reason for the sentencing of Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the confinement in the Nowon-gu Station, Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the crime subject to the application of the law of the next time inquiry, and Article 70 (1) and Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the temporary payment order under Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act that makes it impossible for the defendant to control the driving of drinking, so it is disadvantageous for the defendant to be subject to punishment, taking into account the safety of traffic and the equality between the drinking driver who responded

(b).