The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On August 24, 2012, the Defendant is the driver of the vehicle with three-wheeled driving vehicles. On August 24, 2012, at around 20:00, the Defendant was suspected of driving the vehicle with three-dimensional distances up to 371 U.S. under the same side. At the time, there was considerable reason to believe that the Defendant was driving the vehicle with three-wheeled driving by drinking, such as drinking in a non-distance and smelling in the breath of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to comply with the demand for the measurement of alcohol by the guards of the Hadong Police Station, including around 23:05, around 23:16, and around 23:27.

2. Determination

A. The crime of non-compliance with a drinking test under subparagraph 2 of Article 107-2 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005; hereinafter the same shall apply) is established when a person who has a reasonable ground to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol refuses to comply with a measurement by a police officer under Article 41 (2) of the same Act. Article 41 (2) of the same Act recognizes it necessary for traffic safety and prevention of danger or when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a police officer has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of paragraph (1) of the same Article, the driver may conduct a measurement as to whether the person under the influence of alcohol is under the influence of alcohol, and the driver shall comply with such a measurement by the police officer. Thus, the person who is obliged to comply with a request for a drinking test by a police officer on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the person under the influence of alcohol

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7074 Decided January 12, 2007). B.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor is alone, in light of the health team, F, and G’s statements made by the Defendant at the time of the instant case in light of the health team, the trial room, and the testimony made by the Defendant.