2015dan3366 Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties, Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement by drinking)

Kim A (66 years, South Korea), Company Board

Residential Ulsan

Standard place of registration:

Park Gyeong-Gyeong (Court Prosecution) (Court of Justice) and Kim Jong-sik (Court of Justice)

April 28, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

Facts of crime

1. Refusal of measuring alcohol;

On November 22, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol at around 55, the Defendant driven a 00 king 000 Hachipp vehicle, which was in the direction of the Defendant’s running at the direction of the direction of the direction of the traffic, and was driven from the direction of the direction of the traffic, to the direction of the traffic, the Defendant voluntarily driven the above 00 Kachip vehicle, which was in the direction of the traffic at the direction of the Defendant’s running at the direction of the direction of the traffic at the direction of the direction of the traffic. After receiving the Defendant’s left part of the Hachip vehicle, the traffic accident occurred, 112, and 00 Hachip vehicle, which was sent to the police officer belonging to the direction of the Hachip Police Station at the direction of the police station at the time of the traffic accident, and stated that the Defendant was making a traffic accident while drinking at the direction of the traffic accident.

The Defendant, at around 23:30 on the same day, was required to respond to the measurement of alcohol by inserting the breath in a total of 35 minutes from the stone area, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the Defendant, breathing, drinking, breathing between 23:14 and 23:49 on the same day on the same day, and making a statement that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant also stated that he was driving under the influence of alcohol.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피 하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다 .

2. Performance of official duties;

피고인은 전항의 일시 , 장소에서 위와 같이 위 경위 석00로부터 혈중알콜농도 측정 기에 입김을 불어넣을 것을 요구받으면서 술을 마신 장소와 마신 술의 양에 대해 질문 을 받자 위 경위 석00에게 " 씨발새끼들 , 내가 왜 너희들한테 그런 이야기를 해주냐 " 고 소리치며 발로 위 경위 석00의 다리를 5회 걷어찼다 .

As a result, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers' criminal investigations.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of refusal to measure the alcohol level), the Criminal Act

Article 136 (1) (the point of obstructing Performance of Official Duties) and the choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

(a) Sentencing;

Article 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties)

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 1 (Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties / Forced Performance of Duties) : Basic area of ‘( June to April)'

[Special Convicts] No. :

2. Crimes of refusing to measure drinking alcohol: Crimes of not setting the sentencing criteria.

[Disposition of Many Crimes] The scope of the recommended sentence shall be based on the lower limit

(b) Determination of sentence;

While the Defendant, while drinking, caused the above-mentioned accident that conflicts with the vehicle coming from drinking, it is inevitable to sentence a sentence in light of the following: (a) the Defendant refused a police officer’s request for a drinking test; and (b) assault and intimidation a police officer who seeks a drinking test; (c) the details and circumstances of refusing a drinking test and obstructing performance of duties; (d) the degree of assault and intimidation is very poor; (e) the Defendant has a past record of drinking driving on several occasions; and (e) the Defendant cannot be deemed to seriously violate the Defendant’s criminal intent in light of this court’s attitude; and (e) the sentence is inevitable.

Judges Lee Jong-sung