(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.21 2014노4643

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.21 2014노4643

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration (0.078%) is not believed for the following reasons.

(1) The hours during which a measurement of drinking to the defendant was conducted has not passed 20 minutes since the last drinking time.

The time of final calculation at the main point is 10:26, and the time of measuring drinking is 10:37.

(2) At the time of repulmon control, a police officer controlling police officer did not give the defendant an opportunity to find a drafting appropriate.

③ Defendant’s demand for re-measurement was rejected without reasonable grounds.

4. The defendant did not have an opportunity to collect blood.

Control police officers did not inform the defendant that the collection of blood should be conducted within 30 minutes without informing the defendant that it should be conducted within 30 minutes, and delayed time when the defendant set up his own opinions and delayed the collection of blood. The defendant deprived the defendant of the opportunity to receive a measurement of blood collection because it was about 30 minutes later.

2. The measurement conducted to determine whether a police officer under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act is under the influence of alcohol shall be understood as a measurement conducted by a respiratory measuring instrument, i.e., the method of objectively converting the degree of taking the alcohol from the body and objectively (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5210, Apr. 21, 200). Meanwhile, according to Article 44(3) of the Road Traffic Act, with respect to a driver dissatisfied with the result of a measurement as to whether a police officer is under the influence of alcohol under paragraph (2) of the same Article, the said measurement may be conducted again by means of blood collection, etc. with the consent of the driver. Thus, in a case where the driver is dissatisfied with the result of the measurement conducted by the above respiratory measuring instrument and requests a measurement by the blood collection method, the police

참조조문

-도로교통법 제44조 제2항

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 4. 21. 선고 99도5210 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2015.10.07 2014고정1216

-대법원 2002. 3. 15. 선고 2001도7121 판결

-부산지방법원 2018.11.14 2018구단306

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.04.25 2013노294

-서울남부지방법원 2019.07.18 2018노1052