Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 1, 2015, the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol reduction by a police officer belonging to the central district unit of the Yongsan-dong Police Station of Yongsan-dong Police Station, who was reported by 112 while drinking alcohol at the E-cafeteria parking lot located in D in the wife population at the time of K-si on March 1, 2015, while driving the F-Saaaaaaaaaa car in the front of the E-cafeteria in the state of drinking.

Due to reasonable grounds, there was a demand for responding to the measurement of drinking in a manner that puts the breag into a drinking measuring instrument over about 30 minutes.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with a police officer's request for a measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. A written statement prepared in the I;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs, requests for measurement of drinking;

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 and 44 (2) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the defendant's refusal to comply with the request of the police officer for the first alcohol test and the second alcohol test; however, the police officer's failure to comply with the third alcohol test; thus, the police officer's refusal to take the fourth alcohol test; thus, it does not constitute a refusal to take the fourth alcohol test, and there is no fact that the police officer's drafting was received from the police officer for his/her life in order to put him/her into practice

2. Comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence held in the judgment, the police officer provided the defendant with life water at the time of the first request for measurement; the defendant, at the time of the third request for measurement, took an attitude that the defendant believed to have concealed the respiratory measuring instrument; however, the police officer did not properly take measurements because it was not sufficient; and the police officer did not continue to take measurements until he met.