도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, there was no reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant terminated driving, dice newly, and had already passed a long time after driving was completed. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to respond to the measurement of drinking by a police officer.
B. The judgment of the court below on the defendant's sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
(a) When deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and prevention of danger, or when deemed necessary to confirm whether a driver has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and it is necessary to confirm whether the driver has driven the motor vehicle, the police officer may request the driver to take a drinking test under Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act unless it is clear that the driver cannot confirm whether the driver has driven the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by means of an ex post facto drinking test, and when the driver has failed to comply therewith, the crime of non-compliance with the drinking test under Article 148-2 (2) of the
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the police officer’s demand for a alcohol test is lawful, and the Defendant has a duty to comply with the demand for a alcohol test, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. In so doing, it is sufficiently recognizable that the Defendant had reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant had driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
(1) G shall open his/her own lebane and drive his/her vehicle behind the vehicle of a defendant to the parking lot, while the defendant is aware of the fact of the accident and the defendant is driving seat only.