On January 18, 2020, at around 22:55, the Defendant was required to respond to the drinking test by inserting the drinking measuring instrument into a drinking measuring instrument for about 15 minutes, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol from the Seoul Police Station C and the slope D affiliated with the Seoul Police Station, which was called after being reported 112, and drinking alcohol, snicking on face, snicking on the face, and that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as confirmation of the appearance of the Defendant’s walking from the CCTV image at the above apartment parking lot.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's demand for sobage measurement without justifiable grounds, by putting him/her on the inside of his/her residence, and avoiding it by putting him/her on the bed and facing face.

Summary of Evidence

1. Results of the defendant's partial testimony verification of the motion picture by the court;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to deal with the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, investigation reports, records of the crackdown on drinking driving, records of crackdown, internal investigation reports, and records of handling reports filed under Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion as to discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act was asserted by the following: (a) the Defendant returned to a vehicle and parked in the kitchen of the residence; and (b) purchased at around 11:12 on the same day in the vehicle and kept in custody on the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant did not have a duty to comply with the police officer’s demand for a alcohol alcohol test.

Judgment

Considering the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly examined by this Court, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was driven under influence of alcohol and returned to the Republic of Korea.

(1) The police shall be around 22:03 on October 8, 2020.