A A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5 million, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1 million.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

Defendant

A is a Crash driver, and the defendant B is an employee of the company operated by the defendant A.

1. Defendant A

A. On November 27, 2015, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, who was in the driver’s seat of the above vehicle, from the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, on the road in front of the Kinsan Police Station D Rabman of the Korea-U.S. Police Station, who was in the driver’s seat of the above vehicle, after receiving a report that there was a vehicle in the front of the Kinsan-si 38 Sinsan-si, a member of the Sinsan-si, a member of the Sinsan-si, a member of the Sinsan-si, and reported that there was a vehicle

Due to reasonable grounds, it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument.

Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s request for measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds on the ground that the Defendant did not drive a vehicle on the same day, around 05:56, around 06:07 on the same day, and around 06:17 on the same day on three occasions, even though he/she did not drive a vehicle on the same day.

B. In order to escape with knowledge of the driving of a person who had the person to drink and drive, the person who had the person driven B at the same time.

In order to make a false statement to an investigation agency, the investigation agency instigated to make a false statement.

2. Defendant B made a false statement to Defendant B: (a) the fact at the same date, time, and place as the above 1. A, which was found to be a drinking and driving of the said vehicle, but was found to have been on December 7, 2015; (b) Defendant B made a false statement to Defendant B, i.e., the Chief F of the Transportation Investigation Station of the Ansan-gu Police Station, who investigated the instant case two times at around 11:28, 2016, and around 11:28, 2016, as he/she had driven the vehicle to the place of detection.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the circumstances of drivers at home;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

A. Defendant A: Articles 148-2(1)2 and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act (a) of the same Act; Articles 151(1) and 31(1) of the Criminal Act (a) of the same Act; and each fine shall be imposed.