도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.
On September 27, 2017, the Defendant in the factory room: (a) 579 (In the center of Daegu Northern-gu), while driving a vehicle for cambling on the front of the luxiness Party at the center of 579 (in Eup/Myeon), and was reported on the occurrence of a traffic accident; (b) snicking the Defendant from the circumstances E in the seat of the D District Unit in the Daegu Gangnam-gu Police Station, Daegu, which was called upon and called, in turn; (c) snicking; (d) snicking; (d) snicking; (e) snicking; (e) snicking; (e) snick-distance; (e) snick-distance; (e) snick-distance; and
A police officer's failure to comply with a police officer's request for a measurement of drinking on the same day, such as refusal to measure the first alcohol at around 13:52 on the same day, refusal to measure the second alcohol at around 13:57 on the same day, refusal to measure the third alcohol on around 14:02 on the same day, and refusal to measure the third alcohol on around 14:02 on the same day,
However, according to Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, a person who drives a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol.
In a case where there is a reasonable reason to determine a person, police officers may take a breath test of whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol, and the driver is obliged to comply with such test, but the driver cannot demand such a breath test even when the breath test is unable or extremely difficult to take a breath test due to reasons such as a driver’s physical disorder, etc., and in this case, police officers requested a breath test of the breath test and failed to put the breath test of the breath in the degree that the breath test of the driver
In addition, Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "it shall be deemed that a person is under the influence of alcohol."
under Article 44(2) as a person with reasonable grounds to be appointed.