beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant has not driven alcohol at the time of occurrence of the instant case.
The Defendant her drinking alcohol on the “E Entertainment Points” L in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, and sought a proxy engineer on the street, and let him drive a motor vehicle owned by the Defendant, and got on and off the back seat. The dispute occurred due to the problem of agency engineer and fee, which is located in the Samwon-gun, the former North Korean Eynam-gun, the point where the police was controlled by the police, and the representative engineer was set up on the side of the river, and the Defendant was under control because he was unable to drive the motor vehicle.
Nevertheless, the lower court found guilty of the facts charged of this case has erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment (the Defendant’s defense counsel asserted the sentencing on the grounds of appeal, but this cannot be deemed as the ground of appeal on March 13, 2017, which was the 20th day of the submission period of the written reason for appeal from March 13, 2017, which was the date when the Defendant received the notice of receipt of the
A. On November 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 05:30 on November 25, 2015, the Defendant driven a B Kaki car in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.110% from the 3km section of the blood alcohol level from the Hanyang-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-dong to the Hanyang-gu, Samcheon-gu, Samcheon-gu, Seoul; and (b) from the 3km section of the facts charged, to the Hanyang-dong located in
B. In a criminal trial, the conviction in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is inevitable to determine the benefit of the defendant. However, such conviction is necessarily based on direct evidence.