beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.05.10 2017노3297

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles and mistake, the Defendant, while driving a vehicle through a substitute driver, did not enter the motor vehicle due to Crar failure, and operated the vehicle on the driver’s seat in order to verify whether the vehicle is broken or not, and in the process, the vehicle was 4 meters behind the will of the Defendant, regardless of the intention of the Defendant.

Therefore, this does not correspond to the "driving" under the Road Traffic Act, and the defendant did not have any intention to drive.

B. Sentencing

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles and the circumstances as follows, it is reasonable to deem the Defendant’s act constituted “driving” under the Road Traffic Act, and the intent thereof can be sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant, and this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

1) While the Defendant had a substitute driver drive the Defendant’s vehicle (a motor vehicle) while moving, the defect that the substitute driver was that the Defendant “not entering the crosswalk” was that the Defendant was “not entering the crosswalk in front of the Dong Kimhae-IC,” and the Defendant was on board the driver’s seat by changing the place between the substitute driver and the substitute driver.

2) At the time, the vehicle driven the three-lanes of the 4-lane road, and stopped to the signal signal atmosphere at the crosswalk near the intersection while driving the three-lanes.

3) The Defendant stated in the court of the court below that “Although the Defendant was put in the back, it did not enter this, and did not enter it in the situation of the malfunction,” and that “the Defendant was released from a clater by taking a clater and cutting the clater.” According to this, at the time, the Defendant was going through a parking blater by cutting off and cutting the parking blick.