도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. On July 28, 2012, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 08:10% of the blood alcohol content, driven a C Sti-type car from the roads near the Gisung apartment complex 8 complex located in the Jinan-dong (hereinafter referred to as the “Sti-type car”), to the roads front of the disease station located in the same city of Jin-dong.
2. According to the suspect's photograph and the prosecutor's statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant at the time of detection, it can be acknowledged that the defendant was employed in the above vehicle at the time, and the term of the vehicle at the time was located in D, and the defendant was found to have caused a false reaction as a result of the detection of the false statement against the defendant. However, the above evidence and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant was a drunk driver at the time and place of charge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
Rather, according to the investigation report2 (general), statement of the police statement about D, statement of suspect's monetary statement and banner photographs, the defendant's driving on around 05:46/14th of July 28, 2012, which is the temporary transfer of the facts charged, had already been parked on the side of the bus stop in front of the bus stops that the defendant was found in the vehicle, and up to 08:10th of the same day before the same day, the defendant's driving specialist stated in the police that the substitute driver driven the vehicle from the 8rd apartment complex near the main apartment complex in the emulation, to the place where the defendant was found, each fact that the defendant installed a banner to find the substitute driving engineer, and the possibility that the defendant was placed on the trial of the vehicle to turn on the emulation at the same time, the defendant's assertion that the above substitute driving engineer was credibility even before the place where the above defendant was found.
Thus, the above facts charged do not prove the crime.