Defendant

Prosecutor

Park Jong-chul(s) and west(s)

Busan District Court Decision 2014Kadan1699 Decided August 28, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the acquittal part)

Even if a person refuses to take a measurement by a drinking-free season, the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement) is established, and therefore it is legitimate to arrest the defendant as a flagrant offender of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of the measurement of drinking-free).

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (limited to four months of imprisonment, one year of probation, one year of community service order, 160 hours, and 40 hours of order to attend a law-abiding lecture) is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

The court below determined that the request for a measurement with only a drinking-free measuring instrument could not be deemed to have been made by a police official under the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal to Take a drinking-free measuring instrument).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor’s aforementioned

3. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The defendant has been punished twice due to unauthorized driving. However, the defendant is against the charge while recognizing the charge, and the distance of driving of the case is about 250 meters and is not long.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence is deemed unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 5(2) of the original decision as to “The point at which 45 minutes’ length elapsed as of September 17, 2014, which was at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of the initial decision at the time of 45 minutes’ length, even if based on September 23:

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)