logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.11.10 2016고단3703
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

[Defendant A] The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for a period of one year from the date this judgment became final.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A

A. On July 16, 2016, the Defendant driven a clive motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.196% at the 3km road from the front of the office of the livealthal in the liveal road in the Chungcheongnam-dong, Gwangju-gu, Gwangju, to the clive road containing light in 387 independently from the front of the office of the livealthal in the same Gu.

B. On July 19, 2016, at around 20:00, the Defendant: (a) stated that “A person who had been aware of the common sense that a fine would have been imposed due to drinking driving in an E-cafeteria located in Gwangju Northern-gu; and (b) stated that “A person who had been aware of the common sense would have been driving in the E-cafeteria to the vicinity of the E-cafeteria, and would have been driving in the E-cafeteria to the security center; and (c) led the said person to have the statement as

Therefore, around 14:00 on July 20, 2016, the Defendant made a false statement that B driven a C Ors car while drinking alcohol on July 16, 2016 from the F System of the Gwangju Northern Police Station located in the 172 Seo-ro, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju.

As a result, the defendant instigated the above B to escape a person who committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment.

2. Around 14:00 on July 20, 2016, Defendant B made a false statement that the Defendant driven under the influence of alcohol according to the above A, who was asked about whether the Defendant was drunk from G in the circumstances of the foregoing FJ, despite the fact that the Defendant was drunk, even though he did not drive under the influence of alcohol.

As a result, the defendant, who committed a crime corresponding to a fine or heavier punishment, had the above A escape.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a CCTV verification at an cafeteria);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Articles 148-2(2)2 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of a sound driving) and Articles 151(1) and 31 of the Criminal Act.

arrow