도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. In light of the following: (a) the key is posted on the top of the gist of the prosecutor’s appeal grounds; (b) the Defendant’s 112 declaration that the vehicle is prone to the road due to a slope; and (c) the Defendant’s 112 declaration that the vehicle is prone to the vehicle due to an accident; and (d) the details of the 112 case handling that the vehicle is being driven by a police box while being driven by a police box, etc., the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant driven a bicycle under the influence of alcohol without a driver’s license.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone can only be recognized as being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the case, and the defendant driving a motor device bicycle.
There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition to the following circumstances, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted each of the facts charged of this case on the same purport does not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the prosecutor.
① Even if the key to the Otobane was displayed, it cannot be presumed to be the sole fact of driving. ② In light of the road status photographs at the time when the Defendant submitted, the phrase “accident” cannot be deemed to mean only “accident during driving.” Moreover, the details of the 112 reported case, which includes the above report, are merely those stated in the comprehensive situation room of the National Police Agency 112 reported by the Defendant. 3. Accordingly, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and thus, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.