logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2012.12.13 2011고정235
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person driving a C Ecub car.

At around 22:10 on May 8, 201, the Defendant driven the front road of Solomon Islands, which is located in Geumcheon-gu, Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Geumcheon-do as the vehicle above the 20-meter section.

At the time, there was a considerable reason to recognize that the Defendant was drunk and driven under the influence of alcohol in the Defendant’s entrance.

Despite this, it rejected the request for the measurement of drinking alcohol three times within the police box of the police station in the Jinjin Police Station without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing evidence photographs;

1. Subparagraph 2 of Article 148-2 and Article 44 (2) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 2011) applicable to the crime

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that it does not constitute a refusal of the measurement of drinking, since they requested the measurement of drinking unreasonably without due process

According to the evidence mentioned above and the witness E and F in this court's testimony, there are reasonable grounds to deem that the defendant was a drunk driver, so the police officer requested a drinking test, and the arrest is recognized following legitimate procedures.

The above assertion is not accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow