beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not drive a vehicle with drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, and there was no reasonable ground to believe that the Defendant was driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, the defendant did not have a duty to comply with the police officer's request for drinking test.
2. When deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and prevention of danger or when deemed that a driver has driven a motor vehicle, etc. while under the influence of alcohol and it is necessary to confirm whether a driver has driven the motor vehicle, the police officer may request the driver to take a drinking test pursuant to Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act unless it is evident that it is impossible to confirm whether the driver has driven the motor vehicle by means of an ex post facto drinking test, and when the driver has failed to comply with it, the crime of non-compliance with a drinking test referred to in subparagraph 2 of Article
(2) In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Defendant is obliged to comply with a police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement on the ground that, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the health team and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant can sufficiently be recognized as having a reasonable ground to recognize that the Defendant had driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant is obliged to comply with the police officer’s demand for alcohol alcohol measurement.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
① During a dispute between the Defendant and the police, H reported the Defendant to the police, but immediately revoked the report when parking problems have been resolved, and the police officer who confirmed the circumstances at the time stated that the Defendant is driving under the influence of alcohol.
② At the time of the lower court’s trial, H stated that the Defendant sn’s smelling of alcohol at the time of the lower court’s trial and the Defendant scam while driving and parking a vehicle.
(3) A police officer in charge of crackdown shall report H around 21:42 on the day of the incident.