logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.10.29 2020고단4310
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On April 20, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Western Branch of the Daegu District Court on April 20, 2010.

On June 27, 2020, around 01:12, the Defendant: (a) driven and parked the vehicle from the seat of the hospital in Daegu North-gu B; (b) around the Defendant’s house to the above location; and (c) was on the part of the Defendant’s house and used a set while driving the vehicle without boarding the vehicle; (b) was parked in the vehicle; (c) F and slope G called the seat of the Daegu Northern Police Station E Zone for the Daegu Northern Police Station, which received the 112 report that the vehicle suspected of drinking was parked.

이에 피고인은 대리운전을 불러 운전하였다고 주장하면서도 대리운전기사 등과의 통화기록 등 증명할 내용이 없고, 피고인의 얼굴이 붉고 많이 비틀거리며 횡설수설하는 등 술에 취한 상태에서 운전을 하였다고 인정할만한 상당한 이유가 있어 위 경차관들로부터 음주측정기 사용법에 따라 음주측정 요구를 받게 되자, 같은 날 01:35경부터 02:02경까지 총 3회에 걸쳐 음주측정기 불대를 입에 물고 부는 시늉만하고 도주하려는 등 음주측정을 거부하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act by failing to comply with a police officer's breath test even though there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice.

2. At around 02:00 on June 27, 2020, the Defendant: (a) received a request for a drinking test from a police officer from the police officer from the Daegu Northern Police Station E District Police Station; (b) refused to comply with such request; and (c) made a breathous and intimidation on the ground that F requires a drinking test.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers concerning the handling of 112 reported cases.

Summary of Evidence

1. The court of the defendant;

arrow