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

On November 17, 2012, the Defendant: (a) divided the name and aesthetic fluor and drinking in C cafeteria at the city of the non-permanent city in Jeju, and divided them; and (b) on November 17, 2012, the Defendant, at the time of the Jeju, had a representative engineer E drive the D-learning car in front of the new market place at the street at the time of the Jeju, and arrived at the front door of the “Iro E” in the front of the Seocho-si, the Sho-si.

After having arrived at the above place, the Defendant driven the above vehicle under the influence of alcohol around 00:30 on November 18, 2012, and driven the above vehicle up to the front of the sub-office of Aduk-gu 200 meters away from the front side of the mat, with a view to not giving the substitute engineer fee to E who is a substitute engineer.

In addition, due to the report of E, an acting engineer, it was discovered to the police officer G of the Seocho Police Station, and there are reasonable grounds to deem that the defendant was found to have driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as the distance between the walk and the walking condition, etc., the police officer was required to measure the drinking level on three occasions on November 18, 2012 from the above police officer around 00:43 on the same day, around 00:55 on the same day and around 1:12 on the same day.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol testing without justifiable grounds, such as avoiding inserting the whole breath of a drinking measuring instrument.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written statement prepared in H and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation and reporting on suspect detection reports, circumstantial statements, rejection of suspect measurement, etc.;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for the punishment, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is the current Road Traffic Act, is to ensure the effectiveness of regulating drinking driving by punishing drivers who are suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol as if they actually drive under the influence of alcohol without any justifiable reason.