Residence omitted

Place of Registration omitted

The defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

The court below rendered a judgment of acquittal against the defendant on the ground that the charge of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in this case is related to the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in which summary order has already been finalized, and thus, the judgment of acquittal is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the blanket crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

On September 25, 2010, at around 01:25, the Defendant driven approximately 3 km along the front side of the 000 apartment dong-dong, Daegu Northern-dong, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.137% of blood alcohol level, the Defendant driven approximately 3 km from the front side of the 000 apartment dong-dong, Daegu Northern-dong.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that ① the defendant's act of drinking alcohol level of 0.137% on the date and time stated in the facts charged of this case constitutes an act of drinking alcohol level of 10.0% on the day before the 00-Dong-dong, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and 01:50 on the same day, which constitutes an act of drinking alcohol level of 2.0% on the same day, and the defendant continued to engage in an act of drinking alcohol level of 0.0% on the street while driving the above 10-dong, which constitutes an act of drinking alcohol level of 1.0% on the same day (hereinafter referred to as "act of drinking alcohol level 1.2. The defendant continued to have an act of drinking alcohol level of 1.0% on the day after he was sentenced to a single order of 0.0% on the day after he was sentenced to a comprehensive order of 1.0% on the day after he was sentenced to a comprehensive order of 20% on the day he was sentenced to the above crime of drinking alcohol level of 1.

C. Judgment of the court below

If a person continues to engage in several acts or acts falling under the name of the same crime for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent and has the same legal benefits from such damage, each act shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. In light of the protected legal interests and the method of punishment for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act which prohibits the "driving of a motor vehicle, etc. under the influence of alcohol" after stipulating the standard of "under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% or more", if the defendant continued to drive the same motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.05% or more for a certain period and has received a one-time measurement of alcohol level, such an act of driving under the influence of alcohol continues to be an act corresponding to the name of the same crime, and is the same as the legal benefits from such damage, in principle, it shall be deemed a single comprehensive crime.

However, in a case where a series of drinking driving activities are conducted on the same day, each driving act cannot be deemed a single comprehensive crime in case where each driving activity is deemed to be based on a new criminal intent in light of various circumstances, such as whether there is a renewal of criminal intent in each driving activity, whether the purpose of each driving is identical, etc., and it shall be deemed that each driving activity constitutes an independent crime by each driving activity.

위 법리에 비추어 원심이 적법하게 조사한 증거들을 비롯하여 기록과 이 사건 변론에 나타난 제반 증거들을 다시 면밀히 검토하여 보면, 결국 이 사건 공소사실인 제1 음주운전행위는 피고인이 2010. 9. 25. 01:25경 혈중알코올농도 0.137%의 술에 취한 상태로 위 000 승용차량을 ①0주차장 앞길에서 부터 000000 아파트 동문 앞길에서 ●●●의 차량을 들이받기까지 약 3km 운전하였다는 것인 반면, 위 확정된 약식명령의 범죄사실인 제2 음주운전행위는 피고인이 같은 날 02:10경 혈중알코올농도 0.138%의 술에 취한 상태로 위 000 승용차량을 9000 아파트 앞길에서 00② ◎ 앞길까지 약 6km 운전하였다는 것인 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, i) 그 일시에 45분 가량 차이가 있을 뿐 아니라, 그 운전한 장소도 전혀 다르고, ii) 음주측정도 이 사건 공소사실인 제1 음주운전행위에 대하여는 같은 날 03:50경에, 위 확정된 약식명령의 범죄사실인 제2 음주운전행위에 대하여는 같은 날 02:10경에 각각 이루어졌다는 것이며, 앞서 본 바와 같이 그 수치도 서로 다르다.

j3) Furthermore, in light of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant continued to drive a motor vehicle under the same comprehensive order of alcohol level as in the instant charges, while driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.137% in front of the said apartment complex, and driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.137% in front of the said apartment complex, and driving the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 10% in front of the said apartment complex, and making it difficult to deal with the accident and to reach an agreement on the next day at the vehicle, and informing contact details. In order to bring it back again after a considerable period of time (the Defendant stated in court of the lower court that the above accident processing and agreement with the victim was needed at the time, the same time as the above confirmed summary order of the first instance court). Thus, the Defendant continued to drive the motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 13% in front of the said apartment after the first act of drinking alcohol level until the commencement of the second act of driving under the influence of alcohol level.

Therefore, while assuming the same fact-finding, the above-mentioned summary order is deemed to constitute a single comprehensive crime, and the effect of the above-mentioned summary order extends to the facts charged in this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the single comprehensive crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again

Criminal facts

On September 25, 2010, at around 01:25, the Defendant driven approximately 3 km in front of the Dong-dong, Daegu Northern-dong, 000 apartment houses located in the front side of the ○○ Parking Lot in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.137% of blood alcohol level.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's oral statement in court;

1. Statement of statement prepared by the police on Do governor Do governor Do governor;

1. Each entry in the report on detection of a host driver and in the circumstantial statement of a host driver;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 148-2 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Consideration of fine, appointment of fine, occupation of the accused, etc.)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Park Jae-min

Judge Lee Hong-soo