도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On December 8, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000,000 from the Cheongju District Court to a fine of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a fine in the same court on April 26, 2010, respectively.
On July 18, 2014, around 03:35, the Defendant driven a fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-fash-g
2. Summary of the judgment below and the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion at the lower court did not receive notice from E, a police officer, at the time of the instant event, that the Defendant could refuse to accompany the said E’s repeated promotion (hereinafter “instant accompanying”). The Defendant was only accompanied to the said E’s repeated promotion (hereinafter “instant accompanying”).
Therefore, the defendant's accompanying of this case constitutes an illegal voluntary behavior, and the defendant's report and circumstantial statement (Evidence No. 2, No. 3, No. 2, and No. 3; hereinafter "the discovery report of this case") stating the result of the measurement of alcohol conducted under the illegal voluntary behavior should be denied as evidence of collection of evidence.
B. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the accompanying of this case was duly made by the Defendant’s voluntary will, and recognized the admissibility of the Defendant’s circumstantial statement and the discovery report of this case as evidence.
In other words, the defendant responded to the drinking test by accepting the proposal that "to confirm the vindication on the acting driving, etc. and deal with the case accordingly" while disputing the driving fact itself at the initial place of control, and moving to the district along with slope E.
In addition, the accompanying of the accused who can be identified by the witness E's legal statement, and the E's control note.