logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.21 2017노1988
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant responded to the drinking test by inserting the whole so long as possible to respond to the police officer's request for measurement, but the Defendant failed to properly measure the drinking so long as possible, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. On November 5, 2016, the Defendant driven a vehicle with a distance of about 100 meters from around 22:10 to the front road of the Busan Southern-dong, Busan-dong, which was located in the same Dong-dong, with a distance of about 100 meters prior to the front road, while driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as drinking smelling the Defendant, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report at the time, due to the shock of the taxi, and driving from the head of the Busan Southern Police Station E District in the Busan Southern Police Station, which was called to the scene at the time, and was under the influence of alcohol.

Even if there are reasonable grounds to recognize the same day from 22:48 to 23:18 of the same day, a police officer did not comply with a police officer's request for the measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds, even though he/she was requested to take a alcohol test four times

B. The lower court determined on the premise that the “measurement” under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act refers to a measurement by a respiratory measuring instrument, and that the measurement by a respiratory measuring instrument is conducted in a manner that a driver conceals the respiratory measuring instrument, and that the voluntary cooperation of the driver is essential, the lower court acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the instant court, namely, that the Defendant was objectively driving under the influence of alcohol.

In a situation where there is a considerable reason to determine a person, a police officer is required to take a drinking test, the first person refuses to comply with the measurement of drinking through a respiratory measuring instrument by drinking water while leaving time, etc., and the last person is able to promptly breath the respiratory measuring instrument, and then breath it.

arrow