도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only the fact that the defendant, after the completion of parking, has taken D from the vehicle to get off, has not driven a vehicle while drinking alcohol.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence examined by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant driven the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol more than 0.05% of alcohol level as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment can be fully recognized.
The lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the judgment.
① On the day of the instant case, the police officer was called up upon the report of hotel staff by the Defendant’s hotel staff that he frighted in D and D, and that he frighted in the hotel street. At around 08:29, the blood alcohol concentration level was measured by 0.073% as a result of the blood alcohol measurement conducted by the Defendant.
At the time, the defendant was fluened red, her walking condition was boomed, and continued her bath against police officers in interested state.
② According to the statement of E, a police officer, the Defendant was aware of the fact of driving the vehicle at the time, and there was a statement that the Defendant, who was a police officer, did not drink but did not drink until 2: Provided, however, there was no fact that the Defendant, who was a police officer, allowed the vehicle to drink alcohol after parking.
③ On May 17, 2017, the Defendant: (a) maintained the statement that he drank after parked with a police officer on a telephone call until the police investigation was conducted; (b) led the Defendant to commit a crime of driving the d motor vehicle from the front side of the hotel to the hotel parking lot after drinking the d, by destroying the statement at the time of the two times and the three times police investigation; and (c) led the Defendant to drive the d motor vehicle to the hotel parking lot after drinking the d motor vehicle.
④ As above, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, with respect to the reasons led to confessions at the time of the two or three police investigations, the Defendant made a false confessions to help the obligor to recover his claim if the obligor D is detained.
However, the place of crime is the place of crime.