logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.04.22 2015고단153
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 31, 2015, at around 01:35, the Defendant 01:35, driven a motor vehicle in front of the Dbaling place C in the East Sea while drinking alcohol, and then fluencing it to people on the street. The Defendant was demanded to take a drinking test at intervals of ten minutes at intervals of 10 minutes, such as a 112 reporter and witness from F District G, etc. of the Police Station in the East Sea Police Station in the East Sea, who was dispatched after receiving 112 reports on the above contents, and stated that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as where he was under the influence of alcohol, such as a flucing place for drinking alcohol, a flucing test at around 01:44, a 01:55, a 02:05, a flucing test at intervals of three minutes at intervals of 10 minutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol measurement without any justifiable reason, by evading such matters as lying on a protruding part of the F District Office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement related H;

1. Report on the statement of the situation of a drinking driver, a report on the actions taken against a drinking driver, and a photograph of refusing to measure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do139, Apr. 1, 20

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act or more;

arrow