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 December 22, 2012, at around 17:50 on December 22, 2012, the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting alcohol while driving a DNA observer in front of the Gyeonggi-do Action Mobilization Apartment apartment apartment on the road. On December 2, 2012, the Defendant was required from F to comply with the drinking test by inserting alcohol into a drinking measuring instrument for about 20 minutes from around 19:51 on the same day, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling red on the face.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. A copy of the register of drinking meters; and

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs refusing to measure drinking;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for the punishment, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of 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 Korea War that the defendant had been dispatched for three years in order to perform drinking after being in charge of the business of incineration of the metals, computers, etc. that were dumped or damaged at the incineration site, and there was symptoms of defrising defrising, his hair disturbing head at the time of committing the crime of this case, and the defendant did not refuse or resist the alcohol measurement at the time of committing the crime of this case, and even though the police officer did not make a breathly to respond to the demand of the police officer, it does not constitute the refusal of the alcohol measurement at the time of breathing.

According to Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, it is recognized that a vehicle was driven under the influence of alcohol.