logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.15 2015노2497
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the grounds for appeal were erroneous and misapprehension of the legal principles on facts at the first trial date of the trial, but the grounds for appeal submitted within the period for submission of legitimate grounds for appeal are erroneous and unreasonable.

1) The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (refluence of alcohol measurement) although the defendant did not comply with the police officer's drinking measurement.

2) The lower court’s punishment (an amount of KRW 8,00,000) that was unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., (i) G and F, a traffic police officer, reported from the reported police officer that the defendant would drive the above vehicle by driving the vehicle from a restaurant that the defendant was eating, and anticipated the direction of the vehicle that the defendant driven, and found the defendant's vehicle and let the defendant get off the vehicle. At the time, the above police officer discovered the vehicle and stopped the vehicle, and caused the defendant to promptly get off the vehicle. This means that the above police officer conducted a breath measurement by drinking so that alcohol concentration is more than 0.06%, and (ii) the F notified the defendant of the scheduled time to measure the vehicle after the passage of 20 minutes after drinking. The above police officer, who did not open a door to the request of the above police officer, tried to open the vehicle by reporting the vehicle to 119, and the defendant continued to comply with the foregoing principle of drinking measurement by the police officer.

arrow