The case affirming the judgment of the court below which held that since the defendant's act of demanding a drinking test by a police officer was not necessary under Article 41 (2) of the Road Traffic Act because he was in a state of suspension of a drunk driving at the time when the defendant requested a drinking test.

The case affirming the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act of demanding a drinking test by a police officer was a traffic safety and the need for prevention of danger as stipulated in Article 41 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, on the ground that the police officer who found the vehicle stopped at a construction site parking lot located 80 meters prior to the place where a police officer was driving under drinking and driving under drinking, and who found it from the vehicle, demanded a drinking test immediately and there was a suspension of drinking at the time when the defendant demanded a drinking test.

Articles 41(2) and 107-2 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 93No733 delivered on May 19, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, which held that the defendant driven his car under the influence of caner, and stopped the vehicle at the parking lot at the rest area located adjacent to the road located at approximately 80 meters prior to the place where the police officer, who was a police officer working at the place where the Gangseo Police Station was working at the place where he was under influence of alcohol, and entered the construction site. The above Kimju, etc. found that they did not pass a few minutes, and he did not go through the house, and confirmed the above parking lot and the face of the defendant with a little red light, and requested the above stop to take a drinking test. However, the defendant refused the police officer's request for a drinking measuring instrument in the shape of the storm line which was kept at the first stop, but the defendant did not take a drinking measure to the extent that it did not appear to be legitimate at the time of the police officer's request for a drinking test so long as it did not appear that the above act of the defendant did not appear to be sufficient to take measures to prevent drinking again at the time of the police officer's request.

Examining the evidence employed by the court below and the court of first instance by comparing it with the records, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and if the facts are the same, there was a considerable reason to suspect that the defendant had taken drinking at the time when the defendant was requested to take a alcohol test, and there was a need to take a alcohol test under Article 41 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)