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

On July 16, 2017, at around 23:36, the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol by the Defendant, such as drinking alcohol to the Defendant, from D, the background leading up to the Busan Sinsan Police Station C District District, and slope E, which called the Defendant, sent to the Defendant from the slope of the Busan Sinsan Police Station C District of Incheon, which called the Defendant to the report of this name, while driving a motor vehicle with fluorb in the apartment complex located in 12, a vice-ro of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, to the second floor parking lot of 609, Dong-dong, 609, a second floor parking lot of 609.

There was a reasonable reason to determine a person, and it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking in a manner that contains approximately 10 minutes into a drinking measuring instrument three times.

Nevertheless, on the ground that it is difficult to measure drinking, the Defendant avoided it and did not comply with a police officer’s request for a drinking test without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting investigation results;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is at issue as to whether the Defendant had committed two times a crime due to drinking driving under the Road Traffic Act, even though he had a record of crime, and thus, constitutes the instant crime of refusing a legitimate drinking test by the traffic police officer on several occasions. However, when the Defendant was unable to find the place where the Defendant was parked in after drinking, he was unable to return the substitute driver, and he was subject to the control of drinking while driving a motor vehicle in order to directly park, it appears that the judgment was completed, and then the Defendant committed the instant crime, and later, his mistake was divided.