beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. On May 23, 2018, the Defendant and the defense counsel withdrawn the improper points of sentencing among the grounds for appeal on the second trial on May 23, 2018.
At the time of refusal to measure alcohol in this case, the Defendant did not have awareness that the Defendant was required to measure alcohol in a state of mental or physical loss due to drinking. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to comply with the measurement of alcohol cannot be punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (re-measurement of alcohol)
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, ① the Defendant’s demand for the measurement of drinking was made three times from February 14, 2017 to February 23:40. The Defendant was under the first demand for the measurement of drinking, and the Defendant did not merely respond to the said demand while taking part in the second demand for the measurement. The Defendant did not take part in the second demand for the measurement twice, but did not properly take part in the measurement, and the police officer did not take part in the second demand for a second demand for the measurement. The Defendant appeared to the effect that, in the first demand for a second demand for the measurement, it stated to the effect that it was against the law, “if it was illegally committed while drinking while drinking, it would be illegal,” and ② under the third demand for the measurement, the Defendant again did not comply with the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking alcohol by taking part in the act of violating the law.
The notice was made to the effect that the arrest was made.
Man-si Doz
“.......... the police officer did not conduct a measurement even if the police officer did not comply with the measurement.”
The Defendant repeatedly responded several times, 3. The Defendant expressed his intention to refuse to take a measurement more clearly as the police officer has repeated the Defendant’s request for measurement and confirmation of his intention to do so, and in particular, in light of the Defendant’s attitude toward the third demand for measurement, there was a certain obstacle to the Defendant’s perception ability at the time of the instant case.
It is not visible.