도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.
Punishment of the crime
On August 1, 2014, at around 00:25, the Defendant was required to respond to a drinking test three times for about two hours, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant had driven a D X-ray car owned by the Defendant under the influence of drinking, such as a drinking alcohol reaction, drinking alcohol, and drinking distance, from the border C belonging to the traffic control division of the Sungnam Police Station at the Sungnam Police Station.
Nevertheless, the defendant avoided this and did not comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. C’s legal statement;
1. Report on the results of the regulation of drinking driving, that of the control of drinking driving, that of the control of drinking driving, and that of the state of drinking drivers;
1. Investigation report (report on hearing statements made by control and inspection inspectors);
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (119 members' statement hearing reports);
1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;
1. The defendant's assertion that Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code of the suspended execution of sentence is that the defendant, at the time of receiving a request from a police officer for the measurement of alcohol, was unable to respond to the measurement of alcohol by showing symptoms that it is difficult to breathe due to a breathic breath, a disease, and that he did not comply with the measurement of alcohol without justifiable
On the other hand, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the above evidence, namely, when the defendant was requested by a police officer to take a drinking test, he did not talk with the police officer that it is difficult to find the chest or to conceal it. However, when the defendant refused to take a drinking test, he requested the defendant to go to the toilet while refusing to take a drinking test. The defendant directly returned 30 minutes from the toilet and returned 112, and the first-aid vehicle was dispatched, and the defendant was bread to the first-aid worker at that time.