beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, with the exception of adding the following “2. Additional Judgment” to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court. Thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
According to Article 44(2) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act, if deemed necessary to ensure the safety of traffic and prevent danger or if there are reasonable grounds to recognize that a driver of a motor vehicle, etc. has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, police officers may take a breath test on whether the driver is under the influence of alcohol. In such cases, the driver shall comply with the breath test by the police officer (paragraph (2)), and with the consent of the driver, the driver who is dissatisfied with the result of the test may re
(B) As above, the breath test is in principle a breath test. Thus, the driver must comply with the breath test unless the breath test is either impossible or extremely difficult due to reasons such as physical disorder, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do2935, Jul. 15, 2010).
If a driver fails to comply with the pulmonary test while demanding it, it cannot be deemed that there is a justifiable reason to refuse the pulmonary test (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do5683, Jun. 23, 2000). C) Even though a driver is unable or extremely difficult to perform the pulmonary test due to a physical disorder, etc., if the driver requests the pulmonary test from the beginning.
(1) In this case, the police officer cannot be deemed to have a duty to take a blood test procedure without omitting the pulmonary test procedure.
The reasons are as follows.
Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4220 Decided October 25, 2002 is as follows.