도로교통법 위반(음주측정 불응)죄 성립요건의 올바른 해석

In order to punish for drunk driving under the Road Traffic Act, it must be proved that the blood alcohol level is at least 0.03% or higher. If a driver refuses or avoids a sobriety test, even though there is a circumstance of sobriety, if it is not proven and cannot be punished, it can result in unfair punishment only for those who responded to the sobriety test, and if you consider the damage caused by drunk driving, there is no question that criminal punishment for non-compliance with the sobriety test is necessary. However, strict interpretation and standards of the constituent requirements are necessary in that the level of punishment for non-compliance with alcohol measurement is heavier than simple drunk driving. And during the crackdown, it would be desirable for the police officer to notify suspected drunk drivers that they can decide whether to drink using a breathalyzer and a breathalyzer measurement method before measuring alcohol, and to notify them that they can measure alcohol by blood collection again if they disagree with the results of the breathalyzer measurement. Meanwhile, in recent years, when drivers run away to hide their drinking facts or are in a situation where drunk driving is revealed due to a traffic accident, they urgently drink secondary alcohol and engage in expedient behavior that confuses the police's measurement. Under the current Road Traffic Act, the scope of the crime of refusal to measure alcohol consumption is considered a crime of refusal to measure alcohol consumption only if the scope of the crime does not comply with the police officer's request to measure alcohol consumption. Therefore, legislatively, I think it is time for legislative supplementation to further broaden this scope and make it difficult to measure alcohol consumption after driving under the influence of alcohol, so that additional secondary drinking can be punished as a drunk driving traffic accident.