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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car in CP.

On July 3, 2016, while under the influence of alcohol around 20:20, the Defendant driven the said car at a section of about 100 meters from the 100-meter radius from the west-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the 105 front road of the said apartment.

The Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on the same day, such as a red fluorous and walking state, from a DNA slope of the Daejeon Western Police Station D police station, which was called up after receiving a report of 112 that he/she had a drinking driver on the same day.

There are reasonable grounds to recognize it, and it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument three times between about 25 minutes.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주 측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Each statement of H and F;

1. A report on the arrest of the case, a report on investigation, and an explanatory note;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and a statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol;

1. On-site photographs and a list of reported cases;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a written confirmation or arrest of flagrant offender;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of refusing to measure drinking), and the selection of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order did not refuse to measure drinking, and the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that drinking was not guilty since they responded to the measurement by inserting the whole infinite, and according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated, F reported the driving of drinking to the police two times, and reported the driving of drinking to the police two times, and the landscape measured at the time was done by the defendant.