beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The police officer controlling the misunderstanding of the legal principles should notify the defendant of the disadvantage resulting from the refusal of drinking, such as the method of informing the defendant of the statutory punishment for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), whenever demanding a measurement of drinking, so the police officer’s demand for the measurement of drinking by the controlling police officer is unlawful.
The defendant's refusal to take a drinking test was only twice, and the defendant requested the police officer to take a second drinking test, but the above police officer rejected it.
The defendant's refusal to take a drinking test is merely temporary and does not constitute an act of refusing to take a drinking test as stated in the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.
B. At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder having no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.
(c)
The punishment of the lower court (five million won in penalty) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court, and the lower court, comprehensively taking account of the following facts, found that police officers driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
For a reasonable reason to determine a person, the defendant required to make a measurement of drinking in such a manner that it is deemed reasonable in light of social norms.
the police officer's demand for the measurement of drinking by the police officer, and there was an error in the procedure of any procedure;
For reasons that it cannot be seen, the defendant's assertion is rejected and the charges of this case were convicted.
① At the time when a police official was called out, the Defendant was in an inaccurate state of walking with a long-distance, red and inaccurate state (around June 27, 2017, the Defendant reported the situation of the driver in charge of driving and refused to measure the Defendant.