beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.07 2014노2964

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (Definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) 1) drank 2 remaining at the house of the village where he resides and she drank 2 after drinking her drinking at the first convenience store in the place of his house and mixing her drinking at the place of his residence. As such, the result of the alcohol alcohol measurement cannot be viewed as a drinking alcohol level at the time of his driving. 2) The Defendant left the vehicle after driving the vehicle, and 15 to 20 minutes after driving the vehicle, and the police officer conducted a alcohol measurement even though it is unclear as to whether her drinking was under the influence of alcohol because she did not directly witness the Defendant’s drinking. The result of the alcohol measurement in such unlawful arrest condition is inadmissible as evidence for collection of illegality.

B. The lower court’s sentence (a fine of five million won) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, G and H couple reported to the police as follows: (a) on November 11, 2013, when driving a one-lane road in the vicinity of the 3rd of the Matan-si, Pakistan on November 11, 2013, the individual taxi in Seoul, which was going beyond the central line, was driving across the central line; and (b) on the road in the side, the individual taxi in Seoul, which was driving in the vicinity of the 3rd of the Mari-si, reported to the police.

B) The police officers E and F received 112 order for a vehicle suspected of drinking driving. The F called the transmitted reporter’s cell phone and called with H with H and explained the location and situation from H where the Defendant driven the taxi. C) The Defendant would like to drive more than 1km to enter an I convenience store located on the road where the Defendant parked a taxi at the end of his house located in C at the time of strike, and then parked at the entrance of K located on the side of the above convenience store.