도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The court below's scope of the judgment in this Court is that the defendant was guilty of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving under influence), which is a single crime, on the grounds of the judgment, as to the facts charged that the defendant driven under the influence of alcohol level of 0.180% in blood, while not guilty, and that only the defendant appealed against the conviction portion and the prosecutor did not file an appeal. The part which found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of appeal was transferred to this court in accordance with the indivisible principle, but is exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and is not subject to the trial and judgment of this court (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2820, Mar. 12, 1991). The court below decided to comply with the conclusion of innocence in this Court's reasoning and did not make a separate judgment in the trial.
2. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the defendant did not consent to blood collection in order to measure drinking, and the defendant's consent to blood collection made on the day of the case was made in a state where the defendant was not aware of, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts and the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.
3. Determination
A. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the process of collecting blood to the Defendant as a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in Korea as the Defendant.
C. D and the court below stated in the court below’s decision that “The Defendant seems to have accurately recognized the present situation because he and she had repeatedly heard several explanations about blood collection through interpretation under the clear consciousness at the time, and signed a letter of consent to blood collection.” < Amended by Act No. 1083, Dec. 2, 1997>