도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On May 30, 2015, at around 13:30, the Defendant driven a car at about 10 meters from the parking lot of 24-12-ro 12, a 126-gil, to the same route in front of the budget capital chain, and was in the influence of alcohol at around 14:12 on the same day, the Defendant was required to take a drinking test by inserting it into the influence of alcohol measuring instruments for 30 minutes, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven a car while under the influence of alcohol, such as a string distance, at the entrance of the budget police station C Zone Zone, from the Defendant, at around 14:12 on the same day, the Defendant was in the influence of alcohol measuring instruments.
Nevertheless, the Defendant refused to comply with a police officer’s request for a measurement of drinking without a justifiable reason by evading it in a way that does not accurately put the part of the drinking measuring instrument into an accurate manner.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. E statements;
1. Report on actions taken against an employer, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (to hear statements by police officers controlling drinking of suspects);
1. The defendant asserts that the operation of drinking alcohol while drinking alcohol does not constitute a refusal of the measurement of drinking alcohol, as the facts or the net response to the measurement of drinking alcohol was made by the defendant under Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts.
The evidence mentioned above, evidence mentioned above, and the defendant's statement show that the defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol. The defendant did not operate the measuring instrument despite the defendant's respiratory failure over several times, and the above measuring instrument did not work normally due to the malfunction at the time. In light of these circumstances, it is determined that the defendant intentionally did not put the respiratory in the drinking measuring instrument properly.
Therefore, the defendant's refusal to take a alcohol test is considered to have been made.