∩ Not Guilty: Breath Test Refusal 

Our client, a foreign national, was prosecuted for violating the Road Traffic Act by allegedly failing to comply with a breath test required by a police officer after driving a vehicle.

However, the client had limited proficiency in Korean, and no professional interpreter or separate means of interpretation was provided during the breath-testing procedure.

RAUN Law Firm therefore focused on whether the client had actually understood the police officer’s instructions and the proper testing procedure, and whether his conduct could truly be regarded as a clear refusal to comply with the breath test.

∩ Key Issue — Was This Really a Refusal?

The client did not simply refuse to use the breath-testing device.

Instead, he placed his mouth on the device several times and attempted to blow into it, but a valid measurement was not obtained.

The key issue was whether the client had intentionally refused to comply with the breath test, or whether the unsuccessful testing attempts resulted from his limited understanding of the instructions given in Korean.

At the scene, no professional interpreter was present, and no separate interpretation device was used. The client’s spouse provided only limited assistance with communication.

RAUN Law Firm therefore challenged whether the testing method and the police officer’s instructions had been sufficiently and accurately communicated to the client.

∩ Attorney Jinhui Jo’s Defense Strategy

Attorney Jinhui Jo of RAUN Law Firm carefully reviewed what had actually occurred during the breath-testing procedure.

The written investigation records alone did not fully establish what the police officer had explained to the client at the scene or how well the client had understood those explanations.

RAUN Law Firm therefore called the police officer who had personally attempted to conduct the breath test as a witness and examined the officer in court.

Through the witness examination, we established important circumstances surrounding the testing procedure, including that no professional interpreter had been present, no separate means of interpretation had been used, and the procedure had proceeded largely with only limited assistance from the client’s spouse.

The examination also focused on whether the officer had sufficiently explained how the client was supposed to provide a proper breath sample, and whether the client had been clearly informed that his conduct could be treated as a refusal to comply with the breath test.

At the same time, the evidence showed that the client had repeatedly placed his mouth on the testing device and attempted to provide a breath sample.

Based on the police officer’s testimony, the actual testing procedure, and the client’s conduct at the scene, RAUN Law Firm argued that this was not a case of intentional refusal. Rather, the evidence showed deficiencies in the testing procedure and communication process, particularly given the client’s limited Korean proficiency.

∩ Result — Not Guilty

The court placed significant weight on the fact that no professional interpreter had been present and no separate means of interpretation had been used, and that the limited assistance provided by the client’s spouse was insufficient to establish that communication between the police and the client had been adequate.

The court also considered that the client had repeatedly placed his mouth on the device and attempted to provide a breath sample.

Ultimately, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the client had no intention of complying with the breath test or that he had clearly refused to comply with it.

Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act by failing to comply with a breath test required by a police officer.

∩ Attorney’s Note

This case was not defended merely by arguing that the client was a foreign national who had difficulty understanding Korean.

We called the police officer who had personally attempted to conduct the breath test as a witness and examined the officer in court, allowing us to identify specific deficiencies in the testing procedure and communication process.

The officer’s testimony, together with the fact that the client had repeatedly attempted to provide a breath sample, supported our position that the absence of a valid measurement did not necessarily mean that the client had intentionally refused the test.

This case involved a foreign national with limited Korean-language proficiency who was prosecuted for failing to comply with a breath test. By conducting a witness examination of the police officer involved and closely analyzing the actual testing procedure and communication at the scene, we successfully obtained a not-guilty verdict.

Attorney Jinhui Jo carefully examines not only the allegations stated in the investigation records, but also what actually occurred during the investigative process, and when necessary, directly challenges the prosecution’s evidence through witness examination to provide an effective defense tailored to each case.