logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.03.20 2013고정2818
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, at around 23:30 on June 28, 2013, driven a C passenger vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.141% of the blood alcohol concentration, following the Defendant’s 3-meter radius in front of the Yellow Dondong, Young-gu, Youngdong.

2. The arrest of the defendant against the defendant and his defense counsel is illegal arrest that does not meet the requirement. The result of drinking measurement conducted while the arrest was conducted constitutes illegally collected evidence, and thus, it is not admissible evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged, and the defendant is acquitted.

3. Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "after the commission of a crime, i.e., the latter person of the commission of the crime," as a flagrant offender, refers to cases where it is evident from the standpoint of a person who arrests an offender immediately after the commission of the crime. As to a flagrant offender within the original meaning of Article 211 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 211 of the said Act provides for "a person who is in the process of the commission of the crime, i.e., the latter person of the crime," and Article 211 of the said Act provides for "a person who is in the process of the commission of the crime, i.e., the latter person of the crime," and Article 211 of the said Act separately provides for a quasi flagrant offender regarded as a flagrant offender. "after the commission of the crime, after the commission of the crime," it is interpreted that "after the commission of the crime, it means the last time or the phase of time connected

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1249, Apr. 13, 2007). According to the records, the Defendant applied for a substitute driver for returning home on June 28, 2013 at the “E” located in the Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the Defendant applied for a substitute driver on behalf of returning home on June 28, 2013, and the Defendant requested a substitute driver to deduct the Defendant’s vehicle for withdrawing at around 11:30 on the same day before the arrival of the substitute driver.

arrow