beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the police officer demanded the measurement of alcohol at the police level immediately without properly notifying the defendant of the disadvantage that the police officer refused to take the measurement of alcohol, and thus, failed to comply with the measurement of alcohol. Even though there are justifiable grounds for refusing to take the measurement of alcohol, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the police officer convicted him of the facts charged in this case or by misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion
B. Even if the facts charged of unfair sentencing are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (fine 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. According to the letter of arrest of a flagrant offender, the statement of the driver's standing statement, the F, and each control note written by D, the Defendant demanded that the Defendant take a drinking alcohol measurement on October 22, 201, at around 22:30, 201, around 1413-5, the Defendant was in the demand of a sloped from an sloped on the 1413-5 street, and at the time, the Defendant was in an influent nature, face, red and snow shocking, and was fluent, but the Defendant was in drinking. However, the Defendant refused to take a drinking alcohol measurement on the ground that he was not driving, D refused to take a drinking alcohol measurement on the ground that he was in the first (2:40), second (2:50), and third (23:05) of the former, Seoul, Seoul, but that the Defendant refused to take a drinking alcohol measurement on the ground that the Defendant was in violation of the Road Traffic Act (23:5).
B. Although the court stated that D was required to take a drinking test before the Defendant was on the patrol vehicle, and that D’s above statement is not an memory after getting on the patrol vehicle. However, in full view of the following circumstances, D’s above statement alone is the fact that the Defendant was requested to take a drinking test at the place where it was discovered and the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender who refused to take a drinking test and was arrested as a result of the refusal to take a drinking test.