If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is a driver of a car in Cnua.

On September 10, 2012, around 02:36, 2012, around 300 meters away from the margym marg fishery mar to the margym d'E convenience store' before driving the vehicle with approximately 300 meters away from the marg to the marg, in the condition of the main alcohol concentration of the blood alcohol concentration in the numerical non-mar marg., employees and time expenses are incurred as a result of visiting the "E convenience store" to drink the above vehicle

On October 02, 2012, the police officer, upon receiving a report on the disturbance of drinking alcohol, rejected a demand for a alcohol test of more than 30 minutes from around 02:06 to 02:36, without good cause, on the grounds that there is considerable doubt that the police officer, who was called, had been making a report on the disturbance of drinking alcohol, has been deemed to have been driving under the influence of alcohol by the defendant, such as the detailed statement of the reporter on the drinking alcohol driving by the defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, and the defendant's body, which was fluened by the flow of alcohol, and confirmed the circumstances of drinking drinking drinking drinking, which is being with red red tanks on the inside the inside

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Report on actions taken against an employer, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (field situations, etc.);

1. Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 of the Act on the Selection of Applicable Provisions and Punishment

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

3. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that the defendant's drinking test request of police officers is unfair on the grounds that there are no reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driving under drinking, and that the defendant started drinking only at the above "E convenience store", not at the above "E convenience store".

The Road Traffic Act shall apply to a person who, under the influence of alcohol, has a reasonable ground to recognize that the person has driven a motor vehicle.