Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 2, 2012, at around 23:20, the Defendant: (a) while driving a passenger car at approximately 5 meters from the taxi platform in front of the taxi platform in Young-gu, Young-gu, 998-8; (b) on September 2, 2012, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting the vehicle into a drinking measuring instrument for about 30 minutes on four occasions, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol and reported that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Simple statement of E;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the written opinion, criminal place, arrest report on a flagrant offender, arrest report on a flagrant offender, internal investigation report (general), detection report on a host driver, field photograph and breath test photograph, investigation report, investigation report, circumstantial report on a host driver, investigation report (specific suspect), investigation report, investigation report (general), investigation report (general) and investigation report (attached to summary order); and

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

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. The summary of the argument recognizes the fact that the defendant driven a drinking beverage at the time of the instant case.

However, at the time of the so-called so-called alcohol testing, the Defendant did not make his best to sustain in a so-called alcohol measuring instrument at the time of the so-called alcohol testing. However, the Defendant merely did not recognize a so-called alcohol measuring instrument due to the breaverization that occurred around March 2012, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol testing.

2. Determination

(a) The measurement of drinking by a pulmonary measuring instrument shall be conducted by a driver;