beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. 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-gu, 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.
2. The person who is required to comply with a request for measurement of alcohol by police officers 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 the 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 Road Traffic Act, and therefore
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do8173, Sept. 8, 2011). The Defendant asserts to the effect that no one had driven as at the time of the charge and only a female employee E was driven.
As the defendant denies the contents of the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, and the accused's self-defense protocol, the admissibility of each evidence is inadmissible.
In addition, the witness F, who is consistent with the defendant's defense that the female staff of the defendant appeared to have been present at the entrance of the large apartment and driving the vehicle on the front-class of the defendant.