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

On February 6, 2015, at around 00:32, the Defendant was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument for about 30 minutes from G during the process of the police box in Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Police Station, on the ground that there is considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant driven while driving the EPEGNN vehicle in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, while setting a car on the street while being set up a car on the street, and was able to recognize that he driven the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelting it on the face, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not put the part of a drinking-free measuring instrument into the drinking-free measuring instrument, and avoided this, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A H statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the report on the statement of the status of drinking drivers (excluding the part written by the accused), and control manual;

1. As a result of each reproduction of video at the control site and CCTV images [the defendant and his defense counsel requested a police officer to take a alcohol test using a method of collecting blood which is a more accurate method of test, but the police officer used to take a alcohol test by a method of respiratory test, disregarding the defendant's demand, and thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have refused a alcohol test. However, according to the witness G's legal statement and the results of reproduction of video at the control site, it can be recognized that the defendant did not have requested a police officer to take a alcohol test by a method of collecting blood during the period when the defendant was requested to take a alcohol test through a method of respiratory test over three occasions, so the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not acceptable.] The application of statutes to the defendant and his defense counsel

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Article 70 of the Criminal Act for the Detention of Labor House Head.