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

On November 03, 2014, the Defendant: (a) there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she was driving a D non-designated motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as the flow of drinking in front of the South Sea Highway (Yambaambamb), which is located in the franchiscison fest of a specific 01:46 on the same day; (b) there is a considerable reason to recognize that he/she was driving a D non-designated motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and (c) on the same day from the slope belonging to the Jeonnam Provincial Police Agency, around 02:10 on the same day; (d) around 02:20 on the same day; and (e) around 02:30 on three occasions

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the sobreath test of a police officer as a person who has a considerable reason to recognize that he is under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (a CCTV confirmation, etc. on the branch offices of the Road Construction Corporation);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on recording for legal submission;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (a point of driving sound);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Although the Defendant was not under the influence of alcohol at the time of a police officer’s request for a sobreath test, the Defendant demanded a sobreath test by a police officer. This does not constitute a requirement to establish the crime of refusal to take a sobreath test, i.e., “the case where there is a reasonable ground to recognize that a person was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.” Thus, even if the Defendant

B. According to Article 38(11) of the Traffic Control Guidelines prepared by the National Police Agency, “A driver who fails to comply with a drinking test requirement shall be informed of the disadvantage caused by the non-driving at intervals of not less than 10 minutes and the driver shall be first refused to conduct the test despite such notification.