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

On July 12, 2012, around 02:30 on July 12, 2012, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol driving in front of restaurants (mutual E) located D at the time of the Government of the Republic of Korea.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol around 05:10 on July 12, 2012, while driving a F car from the above E parking lot to the parking lot for the first floor of the E building, was already under the influence of alcohol, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant, who had been under the influence of alcohol, had been under the influence of alcohol, driven a vehicle again from the slope G belonging to the K-Government Police Station, which found that the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol, had been under the influence of alcohol, such as the molding distance, etc., and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a alcohol measurement without justifiable grounds, even though he/she was required to comply with the demand of a police officer for a alcohol measurement by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument four times from the I district located in the Government-Si from July 12, 2012 to July 12, 205:49.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A copy of a report on the situation of a drinking driver, and a copy of the usage register of a drinking measuring instrument;

1. On-site photographs, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

1. Determination as to the assertion that an investigation is illegal

A. On July 12, 2012, the summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserted that the police officer’s act of failing to comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol alcohol measurement is not a crime, since it constitutes an illegal naval investigation where a police officer’s failure to comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol measurement is an illegal act to return the key of the motor vehicle to the defendant after the police officer’s drinking driving and completing an investigation, and to recontrol the defendant who moved and parked after leaving the parking lot known

B. As recognized by the evidence duly examined and adopted in this court, the mere fact that the police officer, around 02:30 on July 12, 2012, controlled the Defendant as a drunk driving and completed the investigation, and the police officer, while returning the key of the vehicle kept in custody to the Defendant, informed the Defendant of the place where the police officer was in transit (E external parking lot).