(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.29 2016노904 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.29 2016노904

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant asserts that there was an error of mistake in the determination of facts in the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant even though the Defendant did not comply with the police officer’s request for a alcohol alcohol measurement twice, but failed to measure it again, and the police officer again failed to comply with the demand for a alcohol measurement from the beginning.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (6 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly adopted and examined, the Defendant is sufficiently recognized to have refused a police officer’s request for a measurement of drinking alcohol by a method of causing breath, not a normal method of measurement to put the police officer into a drinking measuring instrument, but a method of prompt drinking, and refusing to comply with the request for measurement by the police officer.

1) The Defendant 1 ton of cargo on the day of the instant case was locked on the nearby road by placing it into the farming road, and upon a witness’s report, C and D sent out to the police station C and D. D’ in the court of original instance, “The Defendant was satisfing, but the Defendant was satisfing on the road without any cause, and the Defendant was satisfing on the road, and the Defendant was satisfing, sating, satisfing, satisfing, and satisfing on the road at the bar of the instant case.

After the defendant was accompanied by a police box, 18:46 times the demand for the measurement of alcohol to 18:46 times to bring the defendant to a fire, but the defendant did not go to the fire that he was designed to put the breath, and the defendant was aware that he was bread with the breath while entering the breath, and that he was promptly breath.

After 18:56 and 19:06, the defendant requested again to comply with the second and third normal drinking measurement, but the defendant did not comply with the demand for measurement.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.09.08 2016노1011

-부산지방법원 2017.04.26 2016구단1114

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.09.26 2019고단823

-수원지방법원 2015.10.30 2015노3548

-전주지방법원남원지원 2020.12.15 2020고단275