logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.08.24 2018고단122
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a ES5 car.

On October 3, 2017, the Defendant driven the said car at the 215 Yacheon-ro 215 Yacheon-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, which was under the influence of alcohol, led to a reaction to the sobling of drinking by under the control of drinking by G police officers belonging to FJ forces of the branch police station, and was under the influence of alcohol, such as smelling and snicking on the face.

There is a reasonable reason to determine a person, and it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 16 minutes in a drinking measuring instrument.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for measurement of drinking on the same day, such as refusal of measurement of the first drinking on the same day at around 02:13, refusal of measurement of the second drinking on the same day at around 02:19, refusal of measurement of the second drinking on the same day at around 02:25, refusal of measurement of the third drinking on the same day, and refusal of measurement of the fourth drinking on around 02:30

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A statement on the circumstances of a driver driving in the State (the Defendant was under the influence of a police officer at the time of measuring alcohol so that there was no intention to refuse a request for alcohol measurement. Thus, the Defendant asserted to the effect that he is innocent. However, according to the circumstances that the Defendant was driving at the time of the dispatch of police officers recognized by each of the above evidence, and the Defendant’s attitude at the time, etc., the Defendant was in a state of drinking to the extent that the Defendant was unaware

It does not appear.

We do not accept the above argument.

Application of Statutes

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 and 44 (2) of the same Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the selection of a fine, and the selection of a fine;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act involving Costs of Trial;

arrow