Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, at around 15:00 on November 19, 2014, had reasonable grounds to recognize that he driven a D vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling in the front of the Heungdong-gu Gaungpo-si C, and requesting a measurement of blood alcohol concentration of a witness, etc., and failed to comply with such demand without justifiable grounds even though he/she received a demand for a measurement of drinking alcohol on three occasions at around 15:41, 16:08, and 16:16.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning internal investigation reports, refusal to measure, and telephone recording;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fine) concerning the Selection of Punishment;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. On the Defendant’s assertion of Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant did not drink much at the time of judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the cost of lawsuit, and there was no reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant was in a state of drinking more than 0.05% alcohol content. As such, the Defendant asserted that there was a justifiable reason to refuse to conduct the measurement because he/she did not refuse to do so and would respond to the police station’s measurement.

In order to establish a crime of non-compliance with a drinking test, a driver does not necessarily have to be in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol concentration in blood by a person in charge of drinking alcohol who is punished for a crime of drinking alcohol at the time of a request for a drinking test, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he/she is in a state of not less than 0.05% of blood alcohol content (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5249, Oct. 14, 2004). Accordingly, in light of the evidence revealed in the judgment, ① the police officer was in a state of not less than 0.05% of alcohol concentration in blood alcohol at the time, and ② the appearance and speech of the defendant at the time, there were reasonable grounds