beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.01 2015노6776

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등

Text

All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) A’s mistake of fact (as to insult), the Defendant did not publicly insult the F of a police officer.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence of Defendant B (2 million won) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

(c)

At the time of committing the crime by the prosecutor (misunderstanding the facts about the acquittal portion of the judgment below), the police officer F was sufficient to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender in order to investigate the defendant's continued insulting crime and attempt to make a measurement of drinking, and as long as the arrest of the defendant is legitimate, the judgment of the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of drinking measurement).

2. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of fact, while there is G in which the defendant A reported the occurrence of a traffic accident, the victim is equal to the bit of bitch bitch.

Since “,” etc., and the victim can be openly insultingly recognized, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of fact is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, Defendant A’s abusive speech to a police officer who is carrying out a legitimate official duty, openly insults and makes a false statement to Defendant B to conceal his/her criminal act among the attempts to be investigated, and thus, it is not good that the crime is not committed, and there is no need to find respect for the public authority or a compliance consciousness.

Defendant

A has been punished by a fine for interference with the performance of official duties in 2009.

In addition, in full view of the following factors: Defendant A’s age, sex, environment, details and results of the crime, and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and pleadings, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.