The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 15 million.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., a fine of KRW 15 million) of the lower court is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. In the trial of the case, the ex officio reversal of the indictment following the amendment of the indictment added "this defendant violated the provision on prohibition of drunk driving or prohibition of refusal to measure drinking at least twice" to "Article 148-2 (2) and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act" to "Article 148-2 (1), Article 44 (2) and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act" at the end of the prosecution of the case, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court's permission.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

3. Thus, without examining the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment below is again decided as follows after pleading.

【The reason for the judgment in multiple times】 The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million at the Suwon District Court on June 20, 2016 due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On September 10, 2019, the Defendant received 112 reports from the entrance of the parking lot for building B in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, to the effect that “the driver’s drinking would be doubtful while a traffic accident occurs”, the Defendant was unable to comply with a drinking test by a police officer without justifiable grounds, even though the Defendant was required to comply with a drinking test by inserting his/her face at around 02:0 on the same day, around 02:0 on the same day, around 02:12, and around 02:26:26 on the same day, while recognizing that the Defendant was driving an EM5 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as the Defendant was able to have breading red on his/her face and boomed, and the drinking reaction in the drinking-free test.

As a result, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving or the prohibition of refusal to measure drinking more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's oral statement at court; 1. The defendant's oral statement at court;