logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.06.02 2015노337
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is likely to harm the lives and bodies of the defendant, and the use of police gear and protective measures are lawful. Since the defendant gets on the patrol vehicle and voluntarily signed and sealed on the written consent of voluntary accompanying, the use of police gear and protective measures are lawful.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion that the use of legitimate police gear and protective measures was lawful, the court below was necessary to use the lock to protect the Defendant’s body at the time of the instant case.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that police officers at the time of the instant case did not use the lock for the defendant as legitimate use of the police gear and protective measures is just, and the prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit.

① E, a fire-fighting right, which was dispatched to the site at the time of the instant case, was a state in which the Defendant understood the horses of E in the court of original instance and responded to it to a certain extent.

The defendant, at the time of the instant case, lost his normal judgment or mental capacity under the influence of alcohol.

does not appear.

② At the time when police officers arrived at the site, the fire officers, who had been dispatched after receiving a report of 119, moved a vehicle to a safe place and had the Defendant move the vehicle to a chief inspector. As such, there was a danger that the Defendant might be forced to scam the vehicle.

It does not appear.

③ G, a police officer who was called to the scene at the time of the instant case, did not act for the Defendant to marbling in the court of the original instance.

The defendant made a statement that there was a danger that the defendant could be crypted by force.

It does not appear.

B. The judgment of the court below on the legitimate voluntary accompanying.

arrow