(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018노6128 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.11.21 2018노6128

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant returned home with the knowledge that the police officer’s measurement was conducted, and thus, the police officer did not properly notify the Defendant of the measuring method. If the measurement was not conducted, the Defendant did not cooperate in the measurement.

In addition, the police officer arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender without sufficient time to explain about the measurement of drinking, and to determine whether the defendant complies with the measurement of drinking.

Therefore, as the Defendant did not comply with a request by a police officer for measurement of illegal drinking, it does not constitute a refusal to measure drinking under the Road Traffic Act, and the arrest of a flagrant offender also cannot be punished for refusal to measure drinking after the arrest.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail on the part at the end of the “a summary of evidence” of the judgment.

D. The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant stopped a vehicle at the center of the road in excess of the center bomb of the road at the time, and was in the situation where the Defendant used a preliminary distribution ground (Evidence No. 10, 13, and 28) and ② Police G was driven by the Defendant during on-site control.

In other words, the defendant was found to have a fluorous drinking so that he was unable to properly take the fluoral body while making a fluoral body, and thereafter the defendant was requested to take a bluoral test, but the defendant has a fluoral fluor

In other words, it has explicitly refused measurement (G's legal testimony and evidence record).

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노1629

-대전지방법원 2017.11.08 2017노1410

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노1266

-광주지방법원 2021.01.13 2019노3142

-부산지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노2730