2015cc. 3623 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement of drinking);

A, Self-Business

Residence

Reference domicile

○○ (Public Prosecution) ○○ (Public Trial)

Attorney ○○○ (Non Line)

January 26, 2016

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period calculated by converting one million won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Criminal facts

On May 5, 2015: Around 21, the Defendant driven a car with CK7 before Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and proceeded with it.

A police officer who has been under the influence of alcohol driving has reported his vehicle and suspended the vehicle at that time.

The driver's seat was on board by the defendant, with a large amount of drinking in the defendant's entrance, and with a large color.

In this red state, the drinking has been reduced due to drinking, and it is recognized that the defendant has drinking alcohol.

there is a reasonable ground to recognize that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol, such as the case.

어 2015 . 5 . 5 . 23 : 33경 , 23 : 47경 , 다음날 00 : 00경 총 3회에 걸쳐 ●●●●경찰서 교통

Compliance with the measurement of drinking by inserting the whole breath of drinking in a breaman D.

However, the defendant is not required to put the breath in a drinking measuring instrument, but is justified without inserting the whole in the breath.

The police officer did not comply with a request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Statement under the circumstances of an employee’s driver;

(The defendant and the defense counsel were unable to respond to the alcohol level measurement due to the previous climatic intent, and a drinking test was conducted.

I asserts that it is not a brupt. However, according to each evidence in the holding, D, a police officer.

the Defendant’s blood collection at the control site, even though the Defendant had talked about the collection of blood.

In fact, it is not possible to respond to the alcohol level measurement due to the Gu and the intention at the site of the alcohol level measurement.

The fact that it was not talked to the purport that it was prompt at the time of the measurement of drinking, and that it was very low in quantity.

In full view of all the facts infinite, the defendant's refusal to take a drinking test as stated in the facts charged.

was recognized)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 148-2 (1) 2 and Article 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Bearing litigation costs;

Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Kim Jong-ju