Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding seven million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 10, 2013, at around 01:25, the Defendant was demanded to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument into a drinking measuring instrument over about 35 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a drinking while under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking by a police officer G belonging to the F Zone of the Central Police Station, and the Defendant, and drinking on the face, from a police officer G belonging to the Central Police Station F Zone, and the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant avoided this and did not comply with the police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the accused in part of the trial records in the third and fourth trial records;

1. The statements made by witnesses I and H in the second trial records;

1. Statement made by witnesses G in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statement made by the witness J in the fourth trial records;

1. Investigative reports, the occurrence of any case of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement) and voluntary reports on such violation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the proper launch and correction of drivers, notices on the completion of correction, and reports on the actual status of drivers;

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. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is that the Defendant moved from the entrance of the D parking lot to the F Zone to the front of the F Zone due to the fee test, but the substitute driver was laid off, and the Defendant set locked within the bond that parked in front of the F Zone.

In such a situation, the controlling police officer failed to notify the defendant of his right to refuse voluntary movement without notifying the defendant of his right to refuse voluntary movement, and requested the defendant to take a drinking test in the F Zone.

At the time of the defendant.