교통사고처리특례법위반등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that F, a witness of the court below, made a statement in the court of original instance at the court of original instance, investigation report (the confirmation report on the process of collecting blood from the police officer opposite to the escape police officer, the defendant's E-mail recording), and blood gathering consent, etc., the Samsung Changwon Hospital was unable to do so at the time of blood gathering to the defendant, but he was able to do so, but he was able to do so. The police officer explained the necessity of blood gathering, and consented to the collection of blood by means of scambling the defendant, etc. as he explained the necessity of blood gathering, and the police officer consented to the collection of blood by means of scambling the defendant. The police officer was unable to obtain a written consent from E, a guardian because he was unable to obtain a written consent from the defendant, and the police officer requested the defendant to sign the above consent and responded it without any objection, but the court below rejected the defendant's violation of the Road Traffic Act or the legal principles as to the violation of the Road Traffic Safety Act.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in this case was issued by the Changwon District Court on February 9, 2007 a summary order of KRW 500,000 for a fine of KRW 500,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act; on January 5, 2009, by the same court on January 5, 200, a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act; and on June 29, 2009, by the same court on June 29, 2009, a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
(1) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).