beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the police officer's request for the measurement of drinking alcohol to the defendant was legitimate in light of the situation at the time, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension
2. Determination
A. On December 30, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant driven a KS7 car from around 17:10 to the Defendant’s house located in YD at the net City D while drinking alcohol at around 17:10,00.
Around 19:07 on the same day, the Defendant driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, such as fluoring snow, fluoring snow, heavy rain, etc. at the house of the above Defendant.
There is a reasonable reason to designate a person, and received a report 112, and was demanded to comply with the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 20 minutes during three times between G during the police box of the net 1,00 Police Station.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with a police officer’s request for alcohol testing without justifiable grounds, such as avoiding inserting the whole in a drinking measuring instrument.
B. The lower court’s judgment can be deemed to have expressed a police officer’s intent to refuse to make a voluntary investigation, explicitly demanding the police officer to leave his/her house after driving, while continuing to stay in the defendant’s house and demanding a measurement of drinking without a lawful compulsory investigation. Nevertheless, in light of the police officer’s demand for a measurement of drinking while continuing to stay in the defendant’s house without taking lawful measures for compulsory investigation, it cannot be deemed a legitimate demand for a measurement of drinking. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant, who failed to comply with the above request for a measurement of drinking, cannot be held liable for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (e.g., refusal of a measurement of drinking), and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the police officer