도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
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
1. On June 18, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million from the Daegu District Court to a fine of KRW 1,500,000 for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 3,50,000 for the same crime at the same court on December 20, 2010, respectively.
On November 21, 2019, while driving a B Poter while under the influence of alcohol at around 23:30 on the road in front of D in Busan Metropolitan City, the Defendant was unable to comply with the demand of a person who was in compliance with the alcohol measurement by inserting the Poter of the Marine Corps into the Marine Corps’s uniform and taking the 112 report to the effect that there was a dispute between the Defendant and the person who was engaged in traffic control by carrying the Poter of the Marine Corps, and that there was a considerable reason to recognize that the person was under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking, drinking, drinking, walking, walking, etc., from 23:30 on the same day to 23:34 on the same day, the Defendant did not comply with the demand of a person who was in compliance with the alcohol measurement by inserting the fluor during drinking time from 23:34 on the same day.
Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.
2. On November 21, 2019, at around 23:40, the Defendant: (a) refused to take a drinking test on the front road located in Busan Metropolitan City, as described in paragraph (1); (b) and (c) intending to flee at the site, the Defendant: (a) sprinked F’s body by hand from a slope F; and (b) sprinked F’s body on the ground of the land surface; and (c) sprinked F’s body on one occasion; and (d) sprinked F’s body on one-time basis; and (b) sprinked F’s back depth.
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;
1. G statements;
1. The circumstantial report of an employee;
1. A report on internal investigation (with regard to the measurement of alcoholic beverages and the details of arrest of a flagrant offender);
1. A list of cases of report of investigation, and