logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.06.24 2014고정486
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 5, 2014, around 00:32, the Defendant driven a Crenren car with a blood alcohol content of about 0.142% in the section of about 5km from the front of the restaurant where it is impossible to identify the trade name located in the Yongsan-gu, U.S., Mangdong-gu, Goyang-si to the front road of the 752km as in the same Goyangyang-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the circumstantial report on a host driver;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Since the Defendant used the Gain’s Gain immediately before the measurement of alcohol, the above blood alcohol concentration quantity cannot be recognized.

B. The police officer in charge informed the Defendant that he/she may demand a measurement based on blood collection if he/she is dissatisfied with pulmonary measurements, thus the Defendant was deprived of an opportunity for a measurement based on blood collection.

(B) According to the evidence before the judgment of February 2, 200 (in particular, the police officer's failure to comply with the request) that the defendant was informed of the fact that he did not use the oral administration and that he could conduct a measurement based on blood collection before and after the blood collection was conducted, the fact that the defendant was notified of the fact that he did not use the oral administration and that he did not request the measurement.

Therefore, we cannot accept each of the above arguments of the defendant.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow