logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.20 2016고정993
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 19, 2016, at around 02:39, the Defendant stopped the sprink passenger car on the roads located in the New Village of Gwangju Mine, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, such as he was able to sit in a driver’s seat while smelling the sprink in a large amount of drinking water from E by the police station of Gwangju Mine Police Station, and he was demanded to comply with the drinking test by inserting the sprink into a drinking measuring instrument over about 49 minutes.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주측정기에 입김을 불어 넣는 시늉만 하는 방법으로 이를 회피하여 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주측정요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The user ledger of the measuring instruments for drinking;

1. Notice of completion of correction;

1. On-site photograph defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant's refusal to take a drinking test was not a result of the drinking test because he did not respond to the drinking test even though the defendant was hidden in a breath of a breath, so he did not refuse to take a drinking test at the time. Since the defendant refused to take a drinking test at the police station, even if he did not refuse to take a drinking test at the police station, it was arrested and carried out by the defendant as a flagrant offender even though he did not refuse to take a drinking test at the breath of a breath,

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, police officers E, who were called to the extreme intercourse upon receiving a report, testified to the effect that “The Defendant demanded a drinking test from the Defendant on several occasions, but the Defendant was based on the refusal to take a drinking test because the Defendant was not able to take a drinking test,” and ② used the Defendant.

arrow