logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.02.16 2016고정717
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as driving a motor vehicle in front of D in Jeju Island with alcohol on April 7, 2016, while driving the motor vehicle for EM passenger under the influence of alcohol, from F District G in the Police Station of Jeju East Police Station to the Defendant’s face.

There was a considerable reason to determine the person, and the result of a simplified inspection on whether the person actually drinks was drinking was able to find the person guilty of drinking.

Therefore, it was demanded to respond to the alcohol testing by inserting the whole in a drinking-free measuring instrument three times in total at the same place on the same day.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to comply with a police officer’s request for the measurement of drinking without justifiable grounds, by avoiding the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the breath of the b

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A report on investigation (a written attachment);

1. The ledger using the measuring instruments for drinking;

1. Control situation CDs, motion picture CDs submitted by the suspect;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, such as site;

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 and 44 (2) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument was that the Defendant, even though the Defendant demanded a crackdown police officer to undergo a co-operation operation at around three (3) months prior to leaving the crym operation and leaving the crym to the hidden water, he/she was able to look at it, and he/she was able to collect blood at the police station.

Since the control police officer's request for the measurement of drinking is illegal, such as not accepting the above request for blood collection, the defendant cannot be deemed to have refused the measurement of drinking.

2. Determination

(a) A person who drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol;

reasonable e.g., designation.

arrow