logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2019.03.21 2018고단556
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
Text

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.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement of drinking level) was requested by the Defendant to respond to the measurement of drinking level by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument for about one hour and thirty minutes, on November 21, 2018, while driving D and D while drinking on the front of the “C cafeteria” in C cafeteria B, the Defendant, at around 21:20 on November 4, 2018, had a considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of drinking, such as the developments and developments leading up to the operation of the Stshing Police Station Emb box belonging to the Stshing Police Station Emb, while driving D and G while drinking on the road. However, the Defendant failed to comply with the demand of the police officer for the measurement of drinking level by avoiding it without justifiable grounds.

2. On November 4, 2018, the Defendant refused to take a drinking test, as described in paragraph (1), on the road in front of the above “C cafeteria”, and the background behind the measurement was that F notified the Defendant of the U.S. doctrine, and that F was to arrest a flagrant offender due to refusal to take a drinking test, and that F was to arrest a flagrant offender at the time of the refusal to take a drinking test, and carried out a knife by hand the knife F’s joint part of the knife F’s knife with the hand, and carried out a knife G with the knife, and the police officer continued to arrest the Defendant’s arms, and that police officers resisted the knife of G’s chest and the knife of a bridge due to drinking and abridge.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with legitimate execution of duties by police officers on traffic control.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G and F;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the notification of the results of the drinking driving control, the report on the state of drinking drivers, and the circumstantial report on drinking drivers;

1. Relevant statutory provisions concerning the crime, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (a point of refusal of measurement), Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of obstruction of performance of official duties), and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

arrow