도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable, for six months of imprisonment imposed by the defendant.
2. The crime of this case is acknowledged that the defendant's refusal of a police officer's request for alcohol measurement under the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he was driving the Oral Sea of this case under the influence of alcohol, and that the drinking driving of this case may cause damage not only to himself but also to another person's life and body, and the current Road Traffic Act stipulates that if a police officer's refusal to take a drinking test is more severe than a mere drinking test even if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he was in a state of drinking for the purpose of preventing driving under the influence of alcohol which threatens the safety of road traffic, and the defendant has committed the crime of this case even though he had the history of being subject to three times criminal punishment due to the same kind of crime.
However, the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case when he was in the trial, and reflects his mistake in depth. The previous previous previous criminal records have been punished three times from around 2008 to around 2010 by a fine for the same kind of crime for the last three years, and there is no record that the defendant's family members have been punished for the same kind of crime, and the defendant's family members want to dissipate the defendant's wife, and it is hard to say that the defendant will dispose of the error of this case after the crime of this case and will not drive under the influence of alcohol again, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the defendant's age, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the sentence of the court below seems unfair.
Defendant’s assertion is with merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendant's appeal of this case is reasonable.