logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.06.09 2017고단806
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2016. 12. 25. 10:14 경 제주시 이도 이동에 있는 상호 서문 떡볶이 앞 도로( 제주 시청 남측 )에서 같은 시 건입동에 있는 제주 항 제 5 부두에 이르기까지 약 5km 구간에서 혈 중 알콜 농도 0.093% 의 술에 취한 상태로 C 카 렌스 차량을 운전한 것이다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying the result of regulating drinking driving;

1. The relevant Article of the Act and Article 148 (2) 3 of the Road Traffic Act regarding criminal facts and the indictment are written on the premise that “the defendant violated the traffic law (driving) at least twice on Nov. 3, 2006 at the police station of the Jeju-dong Police Station, and on May 14, 2007 at the same police station of the Jeju-dong Police Station, the defendant violated the traffic law at least twice.” However, Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act is stated as “Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act.”

In other words, the purpose of this case's drinking driving is the third drinking driving, and the applicable legal provision seems to be a clerical error in Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act.

However, according to the records, the Defendant’s “Defendant’s “On Nov. 3, 2006” is a clerical error in the “On Nov. 3, 2005 (the 27th page of evidence)” and it is about drinking on Oct. 30, 2005 (34 pages). In that end, Article 148-2(1)1 of the current Road Traffic Act prohibits driving while driving on the road (Article 44(1) of the current Road Act), which is amended by Act No. 7545 on May 31, 2005 (amended by Act No. 7545, Jun. 1, 2006) includes a person who violated Article 41(1) of the current Road Traffic Act, and Article 148-2(1)4 of the former Road Traffic Act cannot be construed to include a person who violated Article 148-1(4)1 of the former Road Act as a requirement.

Therefore, Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act does not apply to the defendant.

Therefore, it is true.

arrow