logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2020.10.28 2020고정191
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 14, 2020, the Defendant received a report on 112, 00:42, stating that “A white vehicle is running in the south-west area from the Dolleung-gun's Dolleung-gun's Dolleng-gun's Dolle-do, the Defendant was not indicated in the bill of indictment near the 4070 Dokung-gun's Space air route, and thus, the Defendant’s request for alcohol measurement and the place of refusal is not indicated in the bill

As there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a person was driven under the influence of alcohol by drinking, such as smelling, smelling, singinging, etc. on the face of the police box by the police box B, etc. belonging to the Heung Police Station B, etc., he was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting approximately 15 minutes in a breath method.

Nevertheless, the defendant avoided this and did not comply with the police officer's request for a drinking test without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving and inquiry of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. A report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and a report on the site conditions of the violation of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (2) and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act recognizes all of the crimes of this case, and the defendant is recognized as having no record of being punished for the same kind of crime prior to the instant case, but the defendant is deemed to have driven a vehicle while driving the vehicle on the day of the instant case, and had been considerably taking place to the extent that it is impossible to memory the situation at that time.

In addition, the cases of sentencing in similar cases, including the details of the detection of the instant case, the circumstances before and after the refusal of a drinking test, the age of the Defendant and the criminal records, etc., are comprehensively considered.

arrow