도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, that at the time of the request for the measurement of drinking, the defendant's no intent to respond to the measurement of drinking was objectively clearly revealed.
As can not be seen, the Defendant cannot be deemed to fall under “where a police officer fails to comply with a police officer’s measurement” as referred to in Article 148-2 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.
B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as stated in its reasoning: (a) after considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court; (b) the following circumstances, namely, (c) the Defendant rejected the Defendant’s request for a test by drinking alcohol from the police around December 26, 2017; (d) the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand for a test by drinking alcohol from the police around 02:43 on the same day without justifiable grounds; (c) the Defendant’s demand for a measurement by drinking alcohol measuring instrument from around 02:43 on the same day to 02:51 on the same day; (c) the Defendant was demanded from the police for a measurement by drinking alcohol measuring instrument from around 02:43 on the same day; (d) the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand for a measurement by the police during which drinking alcohol was measured; and (e) the Defendant’s refusal to comply with the demand for a measurement in the process of drinking; and
On the other hand, it was determined that the defendant's act was sufficient to evaluate the defendant's act of refusing to measure drinking.
2) Examining the records of the above deliberation in light of the records, we agree with the above fact finding and determination by the court below is just.