logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.11.22 2012고합850
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On May 13, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 00:50, at around 467-6, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City, the Defendant: (b) had a reasonable ground to recognize that he was driven under the influence of alcohol, such as snicking, snicking, and snicking, and snicking, etc. on the face; (c) on the other hand, the Defendant was requested to comply with a request for the measurement of drinking alcohol by a police officer, even though he was not required to comply with the demand for a measurement of drinking alcohol by inserting four minutes in total four minutes from D, the c district traffic inspector affiliated with the C district traffic inspector, without justifiable grounds.

2. The crime of non-compliance with the measurement of alcohol under Article 148-2 (1) 2 of the Road Traffic Act is established when a person who has reasonable grounds to be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol fails to comply with the measurement by a police officer under Article 44 (2) of the same Act.

In addition, Article 44 (2) of the same Act provides that when a police officer deems it necessary for traffic safety and prevention of danger, or when there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a police officer has driven a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol in violation of the provisions of paragraph (1), he/she may measure whether a driver is under the influence of alcohol, and the driver shall comply with such

Therefore, a person who is required to comply with a request for a sobreath test by a police officer on the ground that there is a considerable reason to recognize that a person driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the same Act is the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, and when the person is not the driver of the relevant motor vehicle, it shall not be deemed that the person has violated the prohibition of driving a motor vehicle under the Article 44(1) of the same Act

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do8173, Sept. 8, 2011). The Defendant from an investigative agency to this court.

arrow