logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2020.01.28 2019고단1192
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of 200,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal Power] On February 10, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 from the Incheon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

1. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act is a person engaged in driving a vehicle BK9.

On September 18, 2019, the Defendant was driving the said car as a duty of around 23:23 on September 18, 2019, and was moving back from the D convenience shop in C at the time of the Jin-si.

In such cases, the driver has a duty of care to safely operate the steering gear and brakes by accurately operating the steering gear and brakes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and left the right side part of the F Kakn-kack vehicle owned by the victim E, which was stopped in the later bank by negligence, was shocked by the Defendant’s back part of the car.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant’s negligence in the above occupational negligence damages the car in the above car amounting to KRW 4.50,000, the Defendant immediately stopped and did not take necessary measures such as providing the Defendant’s personal information to the victim.

2. On September 18, 2019, at around 23:23:23, the Defendant: (a) caused the foregoing traffic accident in front of the D convenience shop located in the Sinjin-si; (b) and (c) went to the roads in front of the Henjin-si, G as it is, and was dispatched after receiving a traffic accident report; (d) the Defendant was demanded by the Gyeong-gu Police Station J to comply with the alcohol measurement to clarify whether the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant driven the said K9 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as viewing that the Defendant was able to have driven the said 9 vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol testing on four occasions from around 00:0 on September 19, 2019 to 00:15 on the same day without justifiable grounds.

arrow