logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노3029
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol on the day of the instant case, went to a destination by requesting a substitute engineer to drive the alcohol on the day of the instant case, and the substitute engineer left the destination due to disputes over the agency engineer and expenses, he left the vehicle and she was seated on the driver’s seat in order to move the vehicle to the side of the side. Thus, the Defendant did not drive the alcohol.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a prosecutor) which is unfair in sentencing (a prison term of eight months, two years of suspended execution, and eight hours of community service order) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake as to the facts was based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) the Defendant’s vehicle was found to have stopped on the fourth-lane of the point where the connection between the expressway and the outer circular expressway is terminated; and (ii) the vehicle’s seat is not a place suitable for a throwter without leaving the vehicle; and (ii) the vehicle’s seat was cut off at the time of discovery (the first towing person’s driver was heeped, but the first towing person was able to take safety measures, such as the replacement of the Defendant by leaving a glass window, and the replacement of the change of the speed of the vehicle to be driven by the Defendant; and (iii) if the substitute driver while driving a vehicle while leaving the expressway, the Defendant’s vehicle should have been driven by a driver without driving the vehicle, and (iv) after leaving the expressway, the Defendant’s vehicle was driven by a police officer without driving the vehicle, and the vehicle was towed.

arrow