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 July 12, 2012, at approximately 14:20, the Defendant driven a C cab in a section of about 10 meters from the front side of the 10-5 United Nations Office, the Singu Police Station, which received a report at the time and sent, and there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as a molding distance, etc., by a policeman E belonging to the Singu Police Station, who was dispatched after receiving a report at the time, and was requested to comply with a drinking test by inserting a drinking measuring instrument three times for about 30 minutes, but refused it without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The first police statement concerning F;

1. A report on the current status of drivers, a report on detection of drivers, a field photograph, and a ledger on the use of measuring instruments for drinking;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (general) and a report on investigation (to hear the F phone statement of a victim);

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. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is likely to be subject to criticism in that the defendant committed the crime of this case in the same manner as the crime of this case in spite of the fact that there is considerable reason to suspect that the defendant had been driving under drinking without any justifiable reason, and even in light of the recent revision purpose of the Road Traffic Act, which has strengthened the punishment for refusal to take a drinking level, it is necessary to punish the defendant solemnly.

However, Article 457-2 (Prohibition of Disadvantageous Alteration) of the Criminal Procedure Act is applied in this case where the defendant recognized the crime of this case and there was no record of punishment for the same crime since the mid-1990s, and only the defendant requested formal trial for a summary order.