logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 상주지원 2014.11.25 2014고단477
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

To the extent that there is no substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, facts constituting a crime are recognized by rhyming

On July 31, 2014, at the time of permanent stay at D:55, the Defendant was demanded to respond to the measurement of alcohol by putting the breath of alcohol in a breath on the front of D at D, and, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and smelling on the face, from G to G by the police box of the resident police station who was dispatched upon receipt of the report, the Defendant voluntarily operated the breath to the Fath of the resident police station, and then, from 20:55 to 21:21 on the same day.

Nevertheless, the defendant refused this and did not comply with a police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's partial statement in court (a statement that he/she did not comply with the direction measurement);

1. The legal statement of the witness H (a statement that the defendant was aware that he was able to take a bath and keep him from the motor vehicle affected by the starting);

1. A witness I's legal statement (a statement that the defendant has driven one to two meters);

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant (or statement that he/she takes alcohol);

1. Application of the circumstantial report on a drinking driver (the statement that the defendant was snick in the entrance of the defendant, and the defendant was unable to walk) (The defendant and his defense counsel denied the driving of the defendant, but comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, the fact that the defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol may be recognized);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. lies in the defendant's criminal records of the same kind in around 2008.

arrow