logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.14 2017고단5313
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven a C-Stop car in the state of alcohol in the parking lot that is then driven by, and parked by, the vehicle in the front while driving it in the state of alcohol at the 5306 parking lot adjacent to the G-Stop car.

The defendant was driven while under the influence of alcohol, such as the response to the drinking reduction, the smelling of alcohol, the snicking on the face, etc.

There is a considerable reason to determine a person, and it was demanded to respond to the measurement of drinking by inserting four minutes in the form of a drinking measuring instrument four times for about 30 minutes from the slope D belonging to the Gandong Police Station of the Gandong Police Station.

그럼에도 피고인은 음주 측정기에 입김을 불어넣는 시늉만 함으로써 정당한 사유 없이 경찰공무원의 음주 측정 요구에 응하지 아니하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. A photograph refusing to measure drinking;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on actual condition survey reports and field photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (including circumstances favorable to the examination in the following cases);

1. The Defendant’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (recognating favorable circumstances as examined in the following) was in a state that, at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state that he had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to dementia in the name of

Therefore, in light of all the circumstances, such as the background and process of the instant crime, the means and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, and the attitude and content of the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency, which can be revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the instant court, the right to things due to dementia in detail at the time of the instant crime.

arrow