도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) G driving a J LN car, and the part of the back wheel of the Defendant’s vehicle with its back wheel wheels was shocked, and there is no fact that the Defendant driven a vehicle at a distance of 1m by driving the vehicle.
Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.
2. As a result of a thorough review of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court’s determination on the above Defendant’s assertion can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant driven the instant vehicle and driven it at a distance of 1m, in addition to the following circumstances.
1) At the time when the Defendant’s vehicle shocks the JN car, the driver of the said vehicle was a driver of the vehicle at the same rate.
G was a driver's seat unclaimed in Schlage, and he was a husband of H0,000.
G and H consistently make statements from investigative agencies to the court of original trial.
In light of this, G, a driver at the time of the shock of the above two vehicles, seems to have not been on board the vehicle.
2) The police officer, who was dispatched to the site at the time of the accident, was also the police officer at the time of the accident, when hearing both statements at the scene of the accident, G said that “the Defendant was faced with his vehicle while moving behind the accident,” and the Defendant also told that “the Defendant was shocked while driving behind the vehicle by himself.”
There is a statement in the court below.
3) The Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the direction of the road and the vertical direction towards the direction of the lower reservoir. G vehicle was parked in the direction of the road and the direction of the road behind the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked in the direction of the road and the direction of the road behind the Defendant’s vehicle, and the lower gate’s vehicle was damaged by the lower gate, and G vehicle was damaged by the lower gate’s back penter.
In the light of the location of parking and stopping of the Defendant vehicle and the vehicle at large rate and the shock of the above two vehicles, G.