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

On May 31, 2013, around 2:20 on May 31, 2013, the 112 report was received by two patrolmen, E, etc., who called the above vehicle and carried out a diving while driving the CK5 vehicle in front of 705-10, Ansan-si, Ansan-si, and the 112 report was sent to the vehicle, and confirmed whether the Defendant was under drinking, who was able to sit and sleep the vehicle in front of 705-10.

On May 31, 2013, the police box E belonging to the police box at the time requires the defendant to take a drinking test three times by inserting the breath in the above control site and the D police box, and the defendant refused to take a drinking test without justifiable grounds, while the defendant refused to take a drinking test without justifiable grounds, inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds to believe that he/she was driven in a drinking state, such as a shot-distance and face coloring red.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Report on the result of drinking control;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ledger of field photographs, drinking meters and usage registers;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and selection of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the police officers dispatched at the time forced the defendant to carry the defendant by a police box, and that the third drinking measure of this case was requested under illegal arrest conditions, so the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be punished as a violation of the Road Traffic Act concerning refusal of drinking alcohol measurement.

In other words, police officers, who were dispatched to the site at the time, discovered that the defendant was locked at the driver's seat and found that the defendant was locked at the driver's seat, and as a result, the defendant was at the driver's seat of the defendant.