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 November 14, 2014, at around 01:45, the Defendant driven a 2m-meter-on-road of the D convenience store in Asan City, Asan City, with a substitute driver and an agent expense, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol, driven a 2m-meter-on-road of the Etwork XG owned by the Defendant.

On November 14, 2014, the Defendant was requested to comply with the blood test by inserting the breath in a breath of alcohol, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, smelling, breath from the police officer H, who was dispatched after receiving the report of the instant case, and breath from the police officer H, and breath of the face of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the day.

On November 14, 2014, at the emergency department of an I Hospital around 02:42, the Defendant was requested from the above H to respond to a drinking test for about 30 minutes, but the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement by the witness J;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the site and photographs refusing measurement;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime, the selection of fines;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for detention in the workhouse, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted the innocence on the ground that the Defendant did not drive at all at all at the time. However, in full view of the above evidence, especially the witness evidence, the witness’s statements in this court and in the investigative agency, and the Defendant’s statements in the investigation agency, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant, who was a substitute driver, was driving the car on his own by the J while driving the car on his own.

This part of the defendant and defense counsel are not accepted.