(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.07.17 2014노3562 | 리걸엔진

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) 대전지방법원 2015.07.17 2014노3562

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant was not a driver although the defendant driven a vehicle at the time of the appeal in this case.

2. On October 17, 2013, around 22:50 on October 17, 2013, the Defendant was a non-motor vehicle driver and a vision while driving the front road of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu.

During the period of time, the defendant was confirmed to drink alcohol and the driver of the other party reported to 112.

Upon receipt of a report, D et al. and one person called to the scene and confirmed, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling, drinking, and drinking at the face, and demanding the defendant to respond to the measurement of alcohol by carrying the defendant accompanied by a police box to a drinking measuring device for about 30 minutes.

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

3. Determination

(a) Any person who is required to comply with a request for a drinking test by a police officer on the grounds that there is a considerable reason to recognize that a person driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in contravention of the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act shall be the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, and any person who is not the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, shall not be deemed to have violated the provisions of prohibition of driving under the provisions of Article 44 (1) of the same Act,

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do8173 Decided September 8, 2011). B.

The defendant asserts that he did not drive as stated in the facts charged at the time of the instant case, and that he was only driven by female employees E employed by the defendant.

C. Based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제44조 제1항

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.11.21 2014고정51

-인천지방법원 2012.11.22 2012고합850

-대전지방법원 2013.12.06 2013고정1575

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.06.18 2014고단1071

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2012.09.14 2012고정319