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 January 22, 2012, at around 03:32, the Defendant failed to comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement, without justifiable grounds, even though he was required to comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement for about 4 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, smelling, drinking, sliding, walking, walking, etc., in the D District D District located in Daegu Suwon-gu, Daegu, as well as drinking, and drinking, in a breathous state.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Protocol of examination of the witnessF;

1. Written statements (F);

1. Report on circumstantial statements of a host driver, report on detection of a host driver, and notification of the completion of correction;

1. Report on the occurrence and detection of a suspect in violation of the Road Traffic Act, investigation report (in relation to refusal of the measurement of the drinking content, about the situation at the time of detection by a suspect and a witness G), and each investigation report (general).

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of the suspected vehicle and photographs of the suspect's refusal to measure, and to the Hemthy CCTV screen;

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. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. In light of the following circumstances in the Defendant’s and the Defendant’s defense counsel’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant driven an Ichip vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) while under the influence of alcohol, and therefore, the Defendant does not constitute a violation of the Road Traffic Act against the Defendant.

1. When the Defendant, who is the Defendant, was under the influence of alcohol, driving the instant vehicle while driving the Defendant, and the Defendant contests with the Defendant, the entrance of Daegu Suwon-gu H apartment is 105.