Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On August 27, 2014, at around 23:47, the Defendant: (a) driven an alcoholic beverage in front of a restaurant in which it is impossible to identify the trade name in the opening of the Kuak-gu, Cheongju-si; (b) caused a traffic accident while driving the Grandland B in the form of drinking on the front of the restaurant; and (c) transported the alcoholic beverage to C for the purpose of the accident investigation, along with D police officers belonging to the Cheongung-gu Police Station C District, called upon receipt of the report.

이어서 피고인은 2014. 8. 28. 01:09경 위 C지구대에서 위 D로부터 음주 측정을 요구받자 용변을 보겠다는 핑계를 대면서 화장실에 들어가 나오지 않는 방법으로 이를 회피하고, 2014. 8. 28. 01:19경부터 약 21분간에 걸쳐 위 D로부터 3회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았으나, 음주측정기에 입을 대고 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant did not comply with the police officer's demand for a alcohol test without justifiable reasons.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to traffic accident reports, photographs, reports on the current status of drivers, investigation reports (report on listening to telephone statements);

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 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order has a history of being punished by a fine of KRW 700,000 for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act around 2003, and driving a motor vehicle with drinking alcohol at the same time, and the defendant's act of not inserting a proper concealment to the extent that the pulmonary measuring instrument may occur, does not correspond to the actual refusal of the measurement

Therefore, the defendant is measured (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210, Apr. 21, 2000).