도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On December 30, 2014, at around 19:30 on December 30, 2014, the Defendant driven a Dgallon-II Dop Dop Dop, under the influence of alcohol content 0.220%, while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant driven a Dgalm Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop Dop, which is owned by the Defendant.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness E;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. Requests for appraisal;
1. Application of statutes on site photographs;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The blood alcohol concentration measured by using the pulmonology measuring device for the determination of the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel is 0.104%, whereas the blood alcohol concentration measured by collecting blood is 0.220% higher than twice the blood alcohol concentration measured by collecting blood, and thus, it is difficult to believe the blood alcohol content concentration by blood testing.
Judgment
In a case where the breath testing performed by a breathr and the breath testing performed by a blood test are different, the question of trust in the breath test is the judge’s free evaluation of evidence selection. However, considering the circumstance that the degree of the breathr measurement conducted by a breathr may be at issue with the accuracy and reliability of the measurement results based on the state of the breathr, measuring method, cooperation of the other party, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the blood test conducted by a blood test to be a breathr more adjacent to the blood alcohol concentration at the time of the measurement, unless there are special circumstances that make it difficult to believe that the result of the test conducted by a blood test, such as artificial manipulation or interference with the other party
(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6905 delivered on February 13, 2004). This Court is adopted.