2012Gohap1206 Violation of the Road Traffic Act

○○○ (63**********)*, Company Won

Residential Gyeongsan City

Sheet (prosecutions) and courtrooms (public trial)

Attorney Kim-con (Korean National Assembly Line)

March 29, 2013

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On August 21, 2012, at around 01:50 on August 21, 2012, the Defendant was under the control of drinking driving for police officers called "a person who was under the influence of driving in a car with a starting speed between the two complexes of 'a mother apartment complex 1 complex 1 complex 2 complex' and was under the control of drinking driving for the Defendant, such as the Defendant's entrance in the driver's seat of a vehicle with a starting speed of the city, sniffing it with a shock, suling it on the face, suling it on the face, and inaccurately, and there is considerable reason to suspect that the Defendant was under the influence of drinking for the same day from 0:36:0 on the same day to 036:36 of the same day, the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the Defendant without justifiable reasons.

2. Relevant legal principles

The crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has reasonable grounds to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the same Act. In addition, Article 44 (2) of the same Act

When a public official deems it necessary for traffic safety and prevention of danger, or when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of paragraph (1), he/she may take a breathe test whether the driver was under the influence of alcohol, and the driver shall comply with such a breathe test by the police officer. Therefore, a person who is required to comply with a request for a drinking test by a police officer on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the driver was driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the same Act is the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, and if the person is not a driver of the relevant motor vehicle, the person is the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, and it cannot be deemed that the person who is not a driver of the relevant motor vehicle has violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol under Article 44(1) of the

3. Defendant's assertion;

The defendant asserts that, from investigative agencies to this court, he/she does not have any fact that he/she takes drinking, but has no fact that he/she drives a vehicle.

4. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant was on board his own vehicle at the same time and place as stated in the facts charged * Ru******(hereinafter referred to as the "vehicle of this case"), and the police officers dispatched to the site upon receiving a report to the effect that "the police officers dispatched from the site are on board a vehicle with the starting speed to the extent that it would be difficult to pass between the two complexes of the apartment apartment complex 1 complex," and until the vehicle was opened the above vehicle and scam out, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol, but the defendant is also found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time, but it is difficult to view that the defendant was a driver of the vehicle of this case, on the other hand, even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove that the defendant was a driver of the vehicle of this case.

Thus, even if the defendant refused a police officer's request for alcohol measurement, it cannot be said that the defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement). Since this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the summary of the judgment of innocence pursuant to Article 58(2)

The presiding judge, judge and Dong judge

Judges Kim Jae-tae

Judges Lee Jong-soo