The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. On June 4, 2013, at around 02:35, the Defendant reported 112 on the charge that he driven the E vehicle on the front of the police box located in the permanent residence C, and obstructed the police officer’s legitimate performance of duties by assaulting the police officer’s chest, i.e., the police officer, who was a police officer of the permanent police station D police box, to take a drinking test from the slope G, and refusing to complete that test. The Defendant “I have been on behalf of the police officer after drinking alcohol, and why I would like to see why I would like to see why I would have been driving under the influence of alcohol or why I would have been driving under the influence of alcohol.”

B. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant was in violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of the alcohol measurement) and was found to have driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol on three occasions from 02:50 to 03:20 on the same day on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as taking a smell from F, a police officer belonging to the Permanent Police Station (a police officer belonging to the Permanent Police Station) who was called out after having received the report of 112 that the Defendant driven the vehicle at the front of a permanent police box located in C at permanent residence at around 02:22, the Defendant was in violation of the Road Traffic Act, but failed to comply with the request of F, etc. for the measurement of drinking alcohol

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are as follows: ① F and G, a police officer, reported on the existence of a motor vehicle for drinking during the patrol on June 4, 2013, sent to the police box in front of the police box located in the permanent residence C; ② After F and G arrived at the scene, the Defendant discovered the Defendant, who was sexually in the vicinity of the E Spo-type vehicle, and demanded the Defendant to take a alcohol test; ③ the Defendant denied the fact of drinking, ③ the Defendant refused the demand of F and G to accompany the vehicle close to the zone for the measurement of drinking alcohol, and the intention not to comply with the demand of F and G.