Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding seven million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

On March 5, 2014, at around 01:11, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, driven a e-sports cargo vehicle at a point of 8.2 kilometers in Daegu-do, Daegu-do, where the Haban-gun, Haban-gun, Sinnam-gun, the Defendant: (a) driven a e-sports cargo vehicle at a point in Daegu-do; (b) stopped the vehicle on the side of the said branch; (c) laid off the vehicle on the side of the said branch; and (d) laid off the vehicle on the driver’s seat; and (d) was at a place dangerous to the Defendant, while the patrol team E belonging to D, who was released from the Korea Highway Corporation, refused it without any special reason; (d) the Defendant rejected it without drinking; and (e) rejected it; and (e) confirmed it.”

Accordingly, there was a reasonable ground to recognize that the defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, smelling, breathing, and breathing, etc. from the slope G belonging to the Gyeongnam Provincial Police Agency, the Highway patrol zone, which was called upon the report of the above E, and making it necessary to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the breath into the breath for about 30 minutes.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused to take a drinking test and failed to comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, GI, J and K;

1. A drinking driver;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant alleged that the Defendant was unlawfully engaged in a police officer’s fluence to Tol, Tol, Bridge, and the management office of the company, and thus, even if the Defendant did not comply with the measurement, it constitutes a crime of refusing to measure alcohol under the Road Traffic Act.