200 Highest 4423 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Refusal of measurement), obstruction of performance of official duties

A, 1973 Raw Sheet, South and Pipe pipes

Residence

Reference domicile

Jinhos (prosecutions) and Lee Jong-chuls (Trial)

Attorney Rental-ho (Free Ship)

March 31, 2021

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 18 million won.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the old house for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】

On November 10, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 by the Ulsan District Court for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

On July 6, 2020, the Defendant: 112 reported on July 21:35, 202 to the effect that “C is making a drunk driving; hereinafter the same shall apply) the front of the “C” in the south-gu, Nam-gu, U.S., Seoul and reported on the 112 report, and read it to the police officers D, etc. dispatched, and there are reasonable grounds to recognize that the Defendant was making a drunk driving, such as a large range of walking conditions, blood color is sitting in the vehicle in red condition, etc., and there is considerable reason to recognize that he/she was a drunk driving. Accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the request of the police officers to refuse drinking even after he/she was arrested in the above assault due to obstruction of the performance of official duties, and did not comply with the request of the police officers from around 21:25 to 23:0 on the day when he/she was under the influence of alcohol due to an act of assault, etc., and did not comply with the request of the police officers.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) or (2) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

2. Performance of official duties;

The suspect, at the same time and place as referred to in the preceding paragraph, takes a bath on the ground that the police officer D, who belongs to the Ulsannam Police Station E District District, was able to engage in d's fluorcing so that the police officer can d's fluorcing to engage in d's fluorcing operations before a drinking test in accordance with the guidelines for traffic control of the National Police Agency, and assaulted the above D's fluorcing with left hand once and interfered with the police officer'

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 148-2(1) and 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020), Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 202), the selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

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

Reasons for sentencing

The punishment as ordered shall be determined in light of all the sentencing conditions, including the circumstances of the instant crime, the degree of obstruction of performance of official duties, the criminal record of the Defendant, and the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the Defendant, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

Judges Kim Jong-chul