If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a CK5 vehicle driver.

On February 2, 2015, the Defendant driven CK5 car volume around 2:35, and was under dispute at the cost of vehicle operation in front of the opposite Dong-dong, Jung-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, while driving a vehicle on the road in front of the opposite Dong-dong, and the Defendant sent the vehicle after receiving a report from D District Guard E of the Daejeon Daejeon District Police Station.

E A A driver under the influence of alcohol, such as sniffing, sniffing, red, and siffying, etc.

From 3:35 to 4:00 on the same day, there are reasonable grounds to determine a person, the Daejeon District Police Station D of the Daejeon Central Police Station demanded that the person comply with the measurement of drinking alcohol by inserting the whole of it into a drinking measuring instrument three times.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds in a way of avoiding “Is no memory who would have been driving.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, G, H, I, and J;

1. A written statement of control and a statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. On-site photographs, drinking photographs and photographs of drinking [the defendant and his defense counsel] (the crime was not clear at the time when the defendant was arrested as an offender, and ② the defendant did not have any possibility of escape, and thus, the defendant did not meet the requirements for arrest in the act of committing an offense. Thus, the request for measurement of drinking in this case made in an illegal arrest does not constitute a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (refusing of drinking), and non-compliance with such request

The argument is asserted.

The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, i.e., (i) at the time when the security guards E, etc. were dispatched to the site and found the defendant, the other party to whom the defendant was placed was the driver was the defendant to drive the above vehicle, and (ii) the defendant was only the J which was the seat of the defendant and the defendant, and (iii) the J was denied.