beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.06.02 2016노228

도로교통법위반(사고후미조치)등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the Defendant’s blood content measurement level, victim D’s statement, Defendant’s residence photograph, witness H and I’s statement, etc., each of the following facts can be sufficiently acknowledged that the Defendant’s blood concentration exceeds the punishment standard level, and that he/she has drinking further after driving.

The defendant's statements are not consistent and reliable.

Nevertheless, the court below which accepted the defendant's assertion and found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Road Traffic Act, has erred in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of eight million won) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds of its stated reasoning, proved without any reasonable doubt that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol level of 0.221% while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.221%.

In addition, the defendant's alcohol concentration in blood at the time of driving exceeded the standard value of punishment.

It judged that there was a lack of recognition.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, i.e., police officers L who called to the defendant's residential area were stated in the court below that "(i) police officers who confirmed the fact that 2 soldiers were contained in the gun but were not opened, and photographs were taken by confirming that 2 soldiers were not opened, but did not carefully search other soldiers in the vicinity; (ii) He stated in the court below that "the 6 can cans and cans and 6 cans and dries were dys of the defendant and dys of the defendant; and (iii) the defendant was never taken."