logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.01.17 2017노4011
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant asserted the misunderstanding of the fact is under the influence of alcohol on the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle parked on the right side of the expressway, which is a point 18 km away from the highway Incheon, which is a point 18 km away from the road. However, the Defendant cannot be ruled out that the Defendant driven a vehicle to a point on the said expressway with an instruction that the employee of the Road Traffic & Transportation Work gets exempted from the driver’s license, i.e., “the driver’s license”, i., the driver’s license, i.e., the driver’s license.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the whole charges of this case that he/she driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced the defendant to the punishment (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The degree of formation of a conviction for finding a guilty guilty in a criminal trial as to the assertion of mistake of fact should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require that all possible doubts be excluded.

The term “reasonable doubt” refers to the doubt that is reasonable, based on logical and empirical rules, of the probability of a fact that is not inconsistent with the facts required, rather than all questions and correspondences. It cannot be said that the doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibilities is included in a reasonable doubt.

In the instant case, the Defendant was at the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked on an expressway at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant recognized the entire facts charged in the instant case in the court of original instance, and argued that the Defendant was at the appellate court, but the substitute driver was at the time of the instant case.

arrow