A police officer who tried to remove evidence of drunk driving after having a traffic accident while drunk was finally sentenced to imprisonment.



Yesterday (26th), the third division of the Daejeon District Court (Deputy Judge Seong-joon Kim) announced that it had sentenced him to one year in prison in the same manner as the lower court in an appeal trial against police officer A.



In February of this year, Mr. A drove his own car after drinking at a restaurant in Gongju City, Chungcheongnam-do, and hit the road median.

However, Mr. A asked the tow truck driver who was dispatched to the accident site to take his vehicle and left the accident site.

A, who took a taxi to a nearby hospital, took another taxi there and moved to another hospital, which was investigated to create an'alibi'.




After receiving the report, the police analyzed CCTV footage near the accident site and confirmed that A was treated at a hospital in Gongju city.

After arriving at the hospital, the police collected blood from Mr. A and measured the level of alcohol in the blood. As a result, it was found to be 0.173%, more than twice the level of license cancellation.



Still, Mr. A denied the alleged drunk driving

and made

an absurd excuse: "

I was angry after an accident and tried to drink water, but I accidentally drank a bottle of soju

."

On the day after the accident, he called the owner of the bar where he drank and instructed him to delete the CCTV footage recorded in the store.

The pub side deleted the video showing Mr. A drinking alcohol as directed.




The prosecution indicted that Mr. A tried to destroy evidence and made a false statement, and applied charges such as violation of the Road Traffic Law and a teacher to destroy evidence.

The first trial court

sentenced him to one year in prison, accusing him of

saying,

"The

policeman, who must obey the law and order more strictly than anyone else, is denying the crime by saying something that cannot be understood

."

Immediately after the first trial sentence, the police dismissed Mr. A.



Mr. A appealed that the sentence was too heavy, but the second trial court also pointed out that "the defendant made a significant impediment to the investigation by calling the relevant people to conceal the fact of drunk driving and encouraging false statements or removing important evidence." While doing so, they made the same decision as the first trial.



This is'News Pick'.