The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the facts charged is the driver of the passenger car in the B B B convention.

피고인은 2018. 11. 10. 06:35경 서울 강남구 C 앞 도로에서부터 같은 구 D 앞 도로까지 약50여 미터의 구간에서 술을 마신 상태로 위 승용차를 운전하였다는 이유로 강남경찰서 E 소속 순경 F에게 피고인에게서 술 냄새가 심하게 나고 눈이 빨갛게 충혈 되고 혀가 꼬여 발음이 부정확하는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전하였다고 인정할 만한 상당한 이유가 있어 같은 날 06:52경부터 07:13경까지 약21분 동안 3회에 걸쳐 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 방법으로 음주측정에 응할 것을 요구받았다.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정 요구에 응하지 않았다.

Judgment

1. The judgment of innocence should be rendered on the ground that the alleged defendant requested blood breath measurement, but the crackdown police officer did not comply with the blood breath measurement request, claiming that the breath measurement should be prior to the breath measurement.

2. The construction of Article 41(2) and (3) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 7545 of May 31, 2005) provides that where it is difficult or very difficult to measure the respiratory for the reason of a driver's physical disorder, etc., or where a driver requests a measurement by blood gathering because of a driver's failure to perform the pulmonary measuring method from the beginning, etc., the procedure for the pulmonary measuring instrument must be omitted and the procedure for the pulmonary measuring instrument must be taken by blood gathering. In this case, the act of failing to comply with the pulmonary measuring instrument cannot be deemed as non-compliance with the pulmonary measuring instrument (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do420, Oct. 25, 2002). This legal doctrine is under the current Article 44 of the Road Traffic Act.