도로교통법위반
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 60,000 won.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 30,000 won shall be one day.
Punishment of the crime
On September 5, 2013, drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses were prohibited from entering a place where entry is prohibited by safety signs, such as a safety zone. However, on September 5, 2013, the Defendant driven a C rocketing taxi owned by the Korea Disabled Co., Ltd., and entered the safety zone at the upstream of the train as the Olympic Games located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Details of inspection on the management of illegal vehicles;
1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes to national newspapers;
1. Relevant Article of the Act concerning the facts constituting a crime and subparagraph 1 of Article 156 of the Road Traffic Act that selects a penalty, and Article 13 (5) of the same Act;
1. The defendant and the defense counsel on the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the custody of the workhouses asserted that the video accompanied by the national questioning among the evidence in the ruling is inadmissible as illegally collected evidence by infringing on the privacy and freedom of privacy.
On the other hand, guaranteeing the dignity and value of the people as human beings belongs to the basic duties of state agencies, which should be realized in criminal proceedings. However, all evidence related to the private life sphere of the people cannot be considered to be immediately prohibited. Thus, the court should decide whether to grant permission by weighing and balancing the public interest, such as effective criminal prosecution and discovery of truth in criminal proceedings, and the protection interests of individuals, such as personal interests (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do3990, Sept. 9, 2010). Since the above image photographs the vehicle run on the road where the vehicle driven by the defendant is open to the public, it is difficult to deem that the core area of the personal rights of the defendant is infringed, while the above image is necessarily necessary for the prosecution against the defendant, submission of the above image as evidence for the realization of public interest should be allowed.