Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000. If the Defendant fails to pay the said fine, then 100.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of a driver's vehicle in F. F.

On March 9, 2016, at around 01:30, the Defendant was demanded to comply with the drinking test by inserting three minutes a drinking measuring instrument into the 33-minutes of drinking, on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, smelling, singing, etc., at the Emergency Station of H Hospital located in G in the Haju-si, the Defendant, at around 01:30.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness J, K and L;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving and the report on the status of drinking drivers;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on the actual condition survey report and accident site photographs;

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 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the key issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they were unable to properly recognize that they were requested to take a alcohol test because they were the head at the time when they were requested by a police officer to take a alcohol test at the hospital and their consciousness was unclear, and that they could not respond to the alcohol test due to injury.

Therefore, the defendant can not be recognized as a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement).

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment, i.e., the Defendant was absent from the vehicle on his own after the accident, and the first responder L, which was called to the scene, testified that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol immediately after the accident, but he was under the influence of alcohol and was in a clear state of consciousness, and iii) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the hospital.