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 September 23:31, 2012, while driving C Ecccoo Passenger Vehicles while drinking the 66-wayway in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant was required to measure the alcohol level for 20 minutes of the alcohol test on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as being snicking and snicking from D in the circumstances where the Seoul Songpa-gu Police Station is affiliated with the traffic safety department.

Nevertheless, the Defendant avoided the influence of a drinking measuring instrument to the extent that the pulmonary examination method is required, and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant’s partial statement

1. Witness D and each legal statement of E;

1. Investigation report on the fact of drinking-driving, report on the status of drinking-driving drivers, details of enforcement, and investigation report (report on the status of drinking-driving drivers);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to video CDs (the second trial date reproduction and viewing);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting a crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts to the effect that “the Defendant did not breath alcohol because he did not drink 1 mar and did not breath alcohol in response to a police officer’s request for measurement, but did not breath alcohol level.”

However, according to the evidence revealed in the summary of evidence, the following circumstances, namely, the date and time stated in the facts of the crime, namely, police officers D and E who requested the measurement of drinking to the defendant at the time, from the investigation stage to the court, have consistently made a statement about the defendant's situation, appearance, the circumstances leading up to the request for the measurement of drinking, the circumstances leading up to the refusal of the measurement of drinking, and their statements coincide with each other, but they are suspected of drinking during