도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
However, the above sentence shall be executed for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On July 30, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court on July 30, 2010, and a fine of seven million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jeju District Court on July 28, 2015.
On March 29, 2020, at around 10:54, the Defendant driven Maz vehicles at a section of about 800 meters from the vicinity of the Defendant’s house B to the DNA path in Seopopo City C.
However, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant was smelling, smelling, inaccurate, and driving a drunk, such as a sloping distance, and that the pedestrian was in the influence of alcohol, the Defendant failed to comply with a police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol without justifiable grounds despite having received a request for a police officer’s request for the measurement of alcohol by inserting the drinking measuring machine three times from G during the police officer’s 10:54 to 11:04 of the same day on the same day from G during the 1112 patrol.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Notification of the results of the drinking-driving control, the report on the state of the drinking-driving driver, the report on the state of the drinking-driving driver, the ledger of the use of the drinking measuring instrument, and related video CD;
1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances shall be considered in light of the reasons for sentencing);
1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is an unfavorable circumstance where a police officer refuses to take a alcohol test, and the crime of this case is deemed bad in the nature of the crime, and the defendant was punished twice as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.
However, it is favorable for the defendant to recognize the facts charged and reflect it.
(b) other.