beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On February 12, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on February 12, 2006, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million as a crime at the Seoul East East District Court on May 25, 2007, respectively.
On January 25, 2016, at around 01:48, the Defendant driven the said car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.148% by inserting the front wheels of the EM5 vehicle into the waterways of “D”, “D,” located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and by undergoing X-cella, trying to deduct it from the front wheels of the EM5 vehicle.
2. In a judgment, the facts constituting an offense ought to be acknowledged based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that such convictions are to be ensured, even if there are doubtful suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the Defendant’s assertion or defense or non-competence thereof, it should be determined based on the Defendant’s benefit.
Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012 see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, the term "driving" under the Road Traffic Act means using a vehicle or horse on the road according to its original method of use (including the type of operation).
However, the following circumstances revealed by the record of this case, such as the witness F’s statement in the court room, i.e., it is difficult for the Defendant to eliminate the possibility of scam by scam because he sits in the driver’s seat of the E-car located in the place under the influence of alcohol at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. In light of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, it is difficult to view that the Defendant had proved without reasonable doubt as to the driving of the said car in the state of alcohol at the time and place under the above charges
3. As such, the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime.