도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On June 21, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. by the Changwon District Court on June 21, 2010, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year in August 23, 2017 by the same court for the same crime, etc.
【Criminal Facts】
1. On March 20, 202, at around 15:45, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (recognition refusal) on the road in front of the C convenience point in the Gangnam Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, the Defendant was called out after receiving 112 reports on the fact that a vehicle suspected of drinking is under the influence of alcohol while driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant did not comply with the request without justifiable grounds, even though he was required to comply with the alcohol measurement by inserting the whole 30 minutes of a total of 30 minutes of the alcohol measuring instrument, such as making the Defendant sniffing a large amount of drinking, and showing a speech and behavior that the state of walking seems to be clear and rhhing.
Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.
2. Around 15:45 on March 20, 2020, the Defendant driven the freight vehicles listed in paragraph (1) of the Road Traffic Act without obtaining a driver’s license at a section of about 120 meters from the front of a H restaurant located in G in G in the Chungcheongnam-si Kim Jong-si to the front of the C convenience store located in B.
At around 16:30 on March 20, 2020, the Defendant: (a) committed assault by F during the police box of the Kim Jong-gu Police Station E-Sari on the 2016:30 on March 20, 2020, on the following grounds: (b) the Defendant: (c) took a alcohol test document, etc. on the Defendant’s suspicion of drunk driving; and (d) took a bath to F of the above police box, “I see this dog, n, n.e., n., n.s., n.s., n.s.s., n.s., n.s.s.
As a result, the defendant has a legitimate execution of duties of police officers on drinking drivers.