The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who drives CSM5 vehicle, was standing on the front road of YTool in front of the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Gyeongcheon-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, on November 00:5, 2012. On the other hand, at around 00:55, the Defendant: (a) was driving the said vehicle; (b) there is reasonable ground to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol due to the absence of a passenger on the vehicle, such as sniffing alcohol, sniffing alcohol; and (c) there is a reasonable ground to believe that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol on the face, such as red tide, etc., at around 01:20 on the same day, around 01:31 on the same day and around 01:41 on the same day; (d) the Defendant did not comply with a legitimate demand of a police officer for the measurement

2. Summary and issues of the defendant and his defense counsel

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant entered into a contract with the substitute driver who had performed alcohol in the Heung-gu F and had been around the port-si F and that the substitute driver was driving the instant vehicle (CM5 vehicle volume), and thus, the Defendant would be punished for the time-based fee due to the career direction and charge of the vehicle, which was 674-2, the Nowon-gu, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, the destination of which are the vehicle (CM5 vehicle volume), and that the substitute driver stopped the vehicle in front of the Yolol-do and received the substitute driver's fee until that time, and there was no fact that the Defendant driven the vehicle, even if the Defendant did not

B. The facts charged of the instant case is premised on the failure of the Defendant to respond to a breath test on the part of the Defendant, who is a driver, even though a police officer could have taken a breath test against the Defendant under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (Prohibition of Driving under the influence of alcohol).

In violation of the provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) and (1) of the Road Traffic Act.