(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016고정1665

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.27 2016고정1665

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a CMW car.

On June 16, 2016, at around 01:45, the Defendant driven the said car from the distance from the Seoul Seongbuk-gu's front road to the Seongbuk-gu Seoul E-Road, to approximately KRW 5,00, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.174%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the situation of running a driving under the influence of alcohol, the inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving under the influence of alcohol, the report on the circumstantial statements of a drinking driver, the detailed statement of control, the inquiry request for appraisal, and

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Jan. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da124

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant had a substitute engineer drive his vehicle after drinking and returned to the country. The defendant requested the borrower of the other vehicle to move the above vehicle to another place on the road because there is a concern that the vehicle will go on parking regulation if the other vehicle is parked in the exclusive parking space of the defendant, and the vehicle is parked on the street, and the borrower requested the borrower of the other vehicle to move the vehicle to the other place, but the above borrower was late, but the above borrower was driving the vehicle for the defendant to park his vehicle without any choice to go to other customers. Thus, the defendant's act is not likely to expect, but there is no possibility that the defendant will not drive the vehicle under drinking solely on the grounds alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted.

참조조문

-도로교통법 제44조 제1항

-도로교통법 제148조의2 제2항 제2호

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2013.04.26 2013노81

-제주지방법원 2019.05.02 2018고합170

-인천지방법원 2020.10.30 2020고정1285

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.09.15 2020고정180

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2013.04.11 2013고정20