beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the purpose of Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act is to punish habitual drinking drivers; the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement is more serious than the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to drinking driving; the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement is not included in the records of driving alcohol under Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act; and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the refusal of drinking alcohol measurement is not included in the records of driving alcohol under Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, there is a gap in punishment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (three years of suspended execution and forty hours of lecture attendance order in August, and 120 hours of community service order) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act provides that “A person who has violated Article 44(1) on at least two occasions and drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the same Act again.” However, it is insufficient to find that the evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant violated Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act. Meanwhile, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act due to the refusal of measurement of drinking constitutes a violation of Article 44(2) of the Road Traffic Act, and thus, the Defendant does not constitute “a person who has violated Article 44(1) of the same Act more than twice.”
In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements of the court below, the above judgment of the court below is justified (the rejection of drinking alcohol measurement).
in the state of drinking more than 0.05% alcohol concentration among the bloods regulated by the Road Traffic Act;
Any person may be determined by law.