logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.10.10 2018고단765
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 4, 2018, at around 00:40, the Defendant driven a fMW 520 d car with drinking alcohol in front of the D hotel E located in the Busan Young-gu, Busan, and 112 reported and controlled it as a suspicion of drinking alcohol driving from the police officer of the Busan Southern Police Station who called the scene, the Defendant driven a fluoral snow and smell in the entrance, fluoring of alcohol, with a large width of walking, and fluoring a red drinking alcohol.

There are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Defendant was demanded to measure drinking by inserting the alcohol measuring instrument four times on the same day from G, one time at around 01:02 on the same day, two times at around 01:10 on the same day, three times at around 01:15, and four times at around 01:20 on the same day, but the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, I, and G;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to CCTV images, on-site photographs, and photographs refusing to measure drinking;

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 and 44 (2) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order - The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel cannot respond to the measurement of drinking because they lose their mind due to the military salutism, and thereby they should not be subject to criminal liability.

Although the defendant had the power to receive medical treatment through the two parts of military power, according to the evidence above, the defendant was unable to avoid scam while refusing to comply with the alcohol measurement and does not seem to have lost the mind.

In addition, the defendant has made a statement as to memory of the major situation at the time when this court was requested to measure drinking, and the above argument is not accepted.

-.

arrow