Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

At around 04:20 on June 16, 2014, the Defendant, as the owner of the Cstststststa taxi vehicle, was under the suspicion of drunk driving from H during the course of belonging to the G District in the Jung-gu Police Station G District of Jung-gu, which received a report that the vehicle suspected of drinking driving is under F apartment on the same day after drinking alcohol in E, and arriving at the F apartment parking lot of the said vehicle at the same time upon the request of a proxy driver, and returned home without stopping the operation of the said vehicle at around 04:30 on the same day.

On June 16, 2014, at around 05:40 on June 16, 2014, the Defendant showed the smelling in G District, face with red and breathing shape, etc. In light of the above contents of the report, there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and accordingly, the Defendant was requested to take a alcohol test on three occasions at around 05:54, and around 06:05, but did not comply with the request without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. A report on arrest of a flagrant offender and a letter of arrest of a flagrant offender;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. A certificate;

1. Scenic photographs;

1. In full view of the following circumstances, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the police officer again refused the demand for a second and third drinking test even though the Defendant respondeded to the demand for a second and third drinking test, despite the Defendant’s refusal to take a second and third drinking test. However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the fact that the control police officer suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time caused the Defendant to breathly and concealed it, but the Defendant did not have the wind properly over several times, and the Defendant appears to have been operating normally at the time of the instant case, it can be recognized that the Defendant refused the first drinking test by a method that does not put the wind into the drinking measuring machine at the time of the instant case.