logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 논산지원 2019.10.15 2019고단376
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On April 3, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daejeon District Court’s subdivision support on April 3, 2015. On September 20, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 2 years for the same crime in the same court, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 28, 2016.

【Criminal Facts】

On August 18, 2019, at around 01:15, the Defendant driven a B low-speed car while under influence of alcohol in an aesthetic concentration from the right edge of the road to the two-lane center of the same terminal in front of the bus terminal in Seosan-si, Seosan-si.

The Defendant, while stopping at the two-lanes of the above road at the driver’s seat of the above vehicle, was driving under the influence of alcohol, was demanded to comply with a drinking test by inserting it into a drinking measuring instrument on three occasions at around 01:22 on the same day, on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds to recognize that he was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as (a) a driver of the above vehicle stopped at the two-lanes of the above road, and (b) a driver of the above vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the 112-round 01:2, around 01:27, around 01:32, in a manner of inserting it into the drinking measuring instrument on three occasions.

Nevertheless, the Defendant had a record of being punished as drinking, and only talked and obscing about the gueste, etc., such as the gueste, etc., and did not put the part in a drinking measuring instrument.

After all, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol testing without justifiable grounds despite the record of violating the prohibition of drinking driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of drinking control;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Criminal facts;

arrow