logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.03.12 2019고단4436
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 18, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of one million won at the Seoul Western District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and on October 23, 2014, a person who had the record of being issued a summary order of a fine of 4.5 million won at the Jungbu District Court on the same offense.

On September 21, 2019, the Defendant, as a person who violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving as above, was driving at around 00:40 on September 21, 2019, and was making a stop after drinking alcohol in the vicinity of 129 Eul-ro 3, Jung-gu, Seoul, and moving about 10km to the roads front of Seoul Jung-gu, the Defendant was demanded to comply with the demand of the Defendant to take a drinking test in a manner of taking alcohol into force on three occasions from around the same day to around 10km-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, which was dispatched after receiving 112 report that the Defendant would be suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for a alcohol test by refusing to comply with a alcohol test and avoiding a alcohol test.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. The Defendant: (a) taken the shape of the Defendant’s refusal to take a drinking alcohol measurement for the purpose of committing a boom E, which was dispatched after receiving a report at the time and place under the above paragraph (1) at the time and place; (b) took a cellular phone; and (c) assaulted the said E’s timber once with a flag’s hand, and flapsed with a breath’s hand.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning the handling of 112 reports.

(i) the evidence;

arrow