logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2013.07.18 2012고합155
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. On August 15, 2012, the Defendant, at around 21:05, driven the E-car owned by the Defendant after drinking alcohol at the D cafeteria located in C, and controlled the suspicion of drinking driving from the C-driving Police Station traffic control assistant F, who is working on the road front of the landfill landfill of the said Rool-dong landfill.

At the time, the Defendant was faced with a shock and eye, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that he was driving while under the influence of alcohol such as smelling, etc., and requested to comply with a drinking test by inserting four times in a drinking measuring instrument from a slopeF, but did not put the whole in the breath without justifiable grounds, and refused a drinking test.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the Plaintiff fell under class 1 of the pulmonary disability. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant, as well as his defense counsel, included not less than 10 times a total amount of 4 times in the so-called drinking measuring instruments, but did not properly measure the above disability and did not comply with the so-called breath test.

B. In light of the judgment, under Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, in a case where there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver was driving a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol, police officers are obliged to comply with such a measurement, but the driver is not obliged to take such a measurement even in a case where the pulmonary measuring instrument is unable or is extremely difficult to take such a measurement due to a driver’s physical disorder, etc., and in such a case, police officers are not obliged to take such a pulmonary measuring instrument so long as the pulmonary measuring instrument is not possible. In such a case, even if a police officer requested a pulmonary measuring instrument to take a pulmonary measuring instrument despite the driver’s body disorder, and did not put the pulmonary measuring instrument

arrow