(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노1022

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노1022

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant is not driving under the influence of alcohol but driving under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was in custody of the vehicle after the completion of the driving (the chief knife).

The lower judgment erred by mistake in the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize that the Defendant was driving alcohol (the Defendant did not drink only after the completion of driving). The lower court was justifiable and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

1) E made a statement to the following purport (see the legal statement and written statement of E in the lower court). ① E dices alcohol in Hop (J) together with the Defendant before the instant case occurred, and the Defendant dices the degree of one illness per week.

② At that time, E had a little dispute with the Defendant, and even thereafter, he took a bath by telephone, and tried to have a dispute again.

③ The Defendant had a head of E on board a vehicle, and began his body E and fighting after getting off from the vehicle.

4. The defendant and E have moved to a place and ended a compromise, and E has brought the next key to prevent the defendant from driving under the influence of alcohol.

However, as the defendant changed the key of the vehicle and continued to drive away as a threat, E eventually reported to the police.

⑤ Until the police officer called out, the Defendant did not take the form of drinking in the train.

2) The Defendant’s legal action is not consistent as follows, and it is difficult to readily accept by the Defendant in light of the details and experience of regulating the Defendant’s driving by drinking alcohol.

① At the time of receiving the first suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant denied the suspicion that K was driving.

However, the control police officer.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2015.04.01 2014고정285

-서울서부지방법원 2014.12.04 2014노1220

-광주지방법원 2016.06.29 2015노3281

-서울서부지방법원 2021.04.01 2020노1395

-청주지방법원 2018.01.18 2017고단1461