beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.02.13 2016고정1288

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was parked in the front side of the Defendant’s car while driving a DNA observer car under the influence of alcohol at around 23:30 on July 21, 2016, while driving the 13 SK K K K K K K K K hub road prior to it; and (b) the Defendant was parked in the front side of the Defendant’s car.

E. The occurrence of a traffic accident involving the front part of a halog car and the occurrence of a traffic accident was discovered, and the suspicion of drinking was discovered to the police officer called out after receiving the report, and the Defendant’s entrance was smelled at the Defendant’s entrance, and the words and behavior were divided, and driving was done under the influence of alcohol, such as a string distance.

There is a reasonable reason to determine the person, and even if the Froman from around 00:15 on July 22, 2016 to around 00:40 on a total of five occasions, he/she did not comply with the demand for alcohol measurement without good cause.

2. Determination

A. In violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, a person who drives a motor vehicle, etc. while under influence of alcohol.

A person who is obliged to comply with a request for measurement of drinking by a police officer on the ground that there are reasonable grounds to determine a person is the driver of the relevant motor vehicle. Thus, a person who has not driven the relevant motor vehicle shall not be deemed to fall under the case of failing to comply with a measurement of drinking under Article 44 (2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do7074, Jan. 12, 2007; 2005Do8594, Oct. 11, 2007; 2008Do3674, Jul. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, Article 2 (2) 18 of the Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has not driven the relevant motor vehicle shall not be deemed to fall under the case of failing to comply with a measurement of drinking under Article 44 (2) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do74, Oct. 24, 2008).