beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.12.21 2017노1173

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The result of the measurement was replaced by the second alcohol measuring instrument at the time of the measurement of the instant so-called alcohol testing. The result of the measurement was 0.130% of alcohol concentration in the blood. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have a large quantity of alcohol, or the circumstances leading up to the replacement of the alcohol measuring instrument, etc., the above measurement result cannot be believed.

Although it appears that there was a problem in the second drinking measuring instrument, the defendant was driving alcohol based on the above measurement result.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in finding facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court to the effect that the police was at issue of a drinking measuring instrument, namely, ① the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the police was at issue of a replaced drinking measuring instrument, but the Defendant was at issue of a replaced drinking measuring instrument. However, the Defendant was at issue of the lower court’s court’s legal statement of slope G, which was in charge of the above measurement work, and the Defendant’s factual inquiry into the original state police station of the lower court, and the investigation report (related to the use of drinking measuring instrument), etc., on the basis of the investigation report (related to the use of drinking measuring instrument), and the drinking measuring instrument used at the time of the instant drinking testing was only one device number (CA032), and the Defendant was at issue of a drinking measuring instrument used at the time of the instant case’s time, which was at least four months prior to the instant crime, and the Defendant was at least three times from July 14, 2016 to July 27, 201.