도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.
Criminal facts
Some of the facts charged were corrected.
The Defendant, around 14:20 on August 9, 2018, in front of the “C” located in Sungnam-si A, A, a revision district of Sungnam-si, conflict with the QM3 car of the E driving while driving a DNS car.
The Defendant stated that he saw that he saw at the time, sniffed, sniffed, sniffed, and E saw that he saw that she was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol, and the Defendant also received 112 reports and received a request for the measurement of alcohol by inserting the fabbbbing the fabbbing machine from G to which he belongs, inasmuch as there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking alcohol to E.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, on August 9, 2018, refused to take a drinking test without justifiable grounds by inserting the breath of alcohol in total three times at around 14:48 on the same day, around 15:04 on the same day, and around 15:10 on the same day, and then refusing to take a drinking test by extracting the above breath of fire, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement to E by the police;
1. A E-document;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of the initial action at the site, reports on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, inquiry of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, records of a drinking measuring instrument, and recording records of each recording (investigative records, 174, 176, 179 pages);
1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018; Act No. 15530, Sep. 28, 2018);
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The defendant, on the grounds of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, did not comply with the police officer’s breath test while driving a vehicle while drinking.
The defendant, immediately after the traffic accident, tried to change the chief passenger and the job, and to avoid the influence of alcohol.