(b) Where a person causes a traffic accident while driving a motor vehicle on his/her own while drinking alcohol after drinking it, whether he/she may be mitigated from punishment due to a mental or physical disability;

(c) The probative value of entries in trial records;

D. In a case where a certified copy of the court records has been sent after the period prescribed in Article 377(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 148 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, whether it can be a legitimate ground for appeal

B. If the Defendant, while driving his/her vehicle, caused a traffic accident while driving a vehicle after drinking it after drinking, this constitutes a case where the Defendant predicted the risk that the Defendant may cause a traffic accident in drinking, and causes a mental disorder by his/her own person, and thus, even if he/she was in a state of mental disorder at the time of the household accident, the punishment for mental disorder cannot be mitigated due to mental disorder.

(c)The legal proceedings on the date of trial proved only by the protocol and their probative value are absolute that materials other than the protocol are not subject to counter-proof;

D. Since the period of forwarding the records of trial under Article 377(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the period of forwarding a certified copy of the judgment against the detained accused under Article 148 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is not a mandatory provision but a decoration provision, the court below sent the records to the public prosecutor's office after the period of forwarding the records of trial and sent a certified copy of the judgment to the defendant after the period of forwarding the certified copy

The number of days under detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

1. In light of the records, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts of the crime based on the evidences of the city is acceptable, and there is no error of law such as, without any evidence, a violation of the rules of evidence, a violation of the rules of evidence, a violation of the Act on the Trial of Appeal, a violation of the reasoning, a violation of the law of appeal, and a lack of reasoning. The arguments are not just to criticize the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the whole jurisdiction of the court below, and they cannot be accepted

2. The gist of the argument is that the court below's failure to adopt the defense counsel's application for examination of evidence is illegal. However, since the court's decision to adopt the application for examination of evidence may choose not to investigate it when it deems it necessary at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 7Do814, Apr. 26, 197; Supreme Court Decision 83Do1419, Jul. 12, 1983). Thus, the court below's decision not to adopt the defense counsel's application for examination of

3. In addition, the court below's determination that the defendant was negligent in driving the vehicle in violation of the duty of care as a driver of a motor vehicle is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the driver's duty of care. However, in light of the records, the court below's determination that the defendant was negligent in driving the motor vehicle according to the Do area without reducing the speed due to the blood alcohol concentration of 0.18% in the situation where it was difficult to do so at night, or not due to the influence of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.18%.

4. We affirm the decision of the court below that the defendant escaped after the accident did not know about the accident because he had been drunk at the time of the accident, and that the defendant did not know about the accident. Although the defendant's assertion of this fact could be seen as mental and physical disability, it did not apply the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes to the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and did not state the judgment on the defendant's allegation of mental and physical disability. However, the decision of the court below on the defendant's claim of mental and physical disability is stated in the reasoning of the decision of the court below as well as in the records (the bottom of the judgment 12 of the court below below below). In light of the records, the court below did not know about the fact at the time of the accident in this case, but did not have or lacks the ability to distinguish things at the time of the accident and escape, it is not acceptable that the defendant could not apply the provision of this case 90-2 of the Criminal Act to the defendant's act of mental and physical disability in this case.

5. The main issue is that the court below excluded the determination on the part of the grounds for appeal by the assistant and the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel.

First of all, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the grounds for appeal by the defendant that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to part of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel, and found the facts constituting an offense at the time of original adjudication in full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court of first instance. This judgment of the court below contains the purport of rejecting the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel that there was an error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance recognized as an accident by the defendant's vehicle even though the death of the victim was not caused by a traffic accident by the defendant

Then, with respect to the argument that the court below has dismissed all of the decision on the grounds for appeal by the assistant, the court below determined only the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel, and stated that the court below did not decide on the grounds for appeal by the assistant. However, according to the records, the defendant did not submit the grounds for appeal by the court below, and only the assistant and his defense counsel can find the fact that the defendant submitted the grounds for appeal. In light of this, the part of the decision by the court below which determined the grounds for appeal by the defendant among the grounds for appeal by the assistant is obvious about the grounds for appeal by the assistant. In addition, considering the grounds for appeal by the assistant on December 19, 1994 and the grounds for appeal by the counsel on December 26, 1994, the contents are almost the same, and the assistant's grounds for appeal by the assistant are not sufficient to supplement the above grounds for appeal by the attorney on December 19, 195, and there is no new ground for appeal by the attorney on December 19, 1994.

6. Further, the court below's argument is examined as it violated the procedure under the Criminal Procedure Act.

First, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is unlawful for the court below to render a conviction by adopting the above witness examination protocol as evidence without preparing the witness examination protocol as to the single witness examination protocol as evidence, and according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the evidence of conviction adopted by the court below is not the examination protocol as to the single witness examination, but the examination protocol as to the single witness examination protocol at the court below, and the protocol of trial must be arranged within five days after the date of the trial (Article 54 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act), but it cannot be deemed that the protocol of trial is null and void merely because the fact that the period of liquidation has expired as

Next, with respect to the argument that the judgment of the court below was rendered without preparing a written judgment at the time of the declaration of the court below, the document recorded in the written judgment is proved only by such evidence (Article 56 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and its probative value is absolute, in which materials other than the written judgment are not allowed (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do571 delivered on October 25, 1983). According to the records of the fifth protocol of trial of the court below (Article 572 of the records of trial), it is obvious that the presiding judge of the court below made the judgment by the written judgment, so the judgment of the court below is lawful and it is not concluded that the contents of the written judgment of the court below are false only for the reasons that the request for delivery of a certified copy of the written judgment was filed several times after the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, such as theory of lawsuit, but did not receive it immediately. The argument is without merit.

In addition, since the period of forwarding the court records under Article 377 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the period of forwarding the certified copy of the judgment against the detained defendant under Article 148 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure is not a mandatory provision but a decoration provision, the court below sent the records to the prosecutor's office after the period of forwarding the court records expires, and the reasons for sending the certified copy of the judgment to the defendant after the period of forwarding the certified copy of the judgment cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal (see Supreme Court Decision 4294No85 delivered on April 28, 19

In addition, when examining the argument that the original was received on the date of pronouncement and that the original was not notified of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the ruling of the court below, such reason cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and there is no evidence to prove that the date of the original receipt

7. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)