On July 16, 2014, at around 22:40, the Defendant heard the statement to the effect that he was a taxi engineer before the taxi platform in the Jeju-nam Budget-Eup of the budget-based branch of the budget-based branch of the budget-based branch of the budget police station that he was under the influence of alcohol and was sent to the taxi engineer after receiving a report that he was frighting to the taxi engineer, and that he was informed of the situation that he was affiliated with the slope D belonging to the C district unit of the budget-based branch of the budget police station that was dispatched to the site, and in fact, the Defendant was parked at the site of the above Bosch Rexroth driver’s vehicle, and the Defendant was in fact parked at the site, and there were reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as a frighting and walking on the face, and the Defendant did not comply with the demand for a drinking test without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement of employer-employed drivers, and statement of employer-employed drivers;

1. Photographs at the time of appearance;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigative reports (attached documents, such as a report at the time of leaving the scene, refusal of alcohol measurement, and written statement of

1. The defendant and his defense counsel under Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act regarding criminal facts, and the defendant's defense counsel asserts that the defendant's drunk is not a driver when moving his vehicle to a place where criminal facts are recorded, and thus the defendant does not constitute a refusal of the measurement of alcohol.

B. The Defendant’s vehicle parked at the entrance of the taxi platform from the investigative agency to the instant court. However, the Defendant’s vehicle parked at the entrance of the taxi platform, and the Plaintiff and the taxi drivers were the Defendant.