logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.07.22 2016고정391
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 13, 2015, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.103% from blood alcohol level around 19:47 on December 13, 2015, driven a cub car in C in the section of approximately 20km from the front line of a mutually aesthetic restaurant near the station in the Namyang-si, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul to the northwest-do, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, west-ro 67-ro, ice-ro, ice-ro 8-do.

Summary of Evidence

The facts of the judgment

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A report on the detection of a driver employed by each owner;

1. A response to a request for appraisal, legal and chemical appraisal report;

1. The fact-finding report, etc. can be recognized by considering the fact-finding report, etc.

However, the defendant asserts that the blood alcohol concentration level cannot be recognized in light of the difference between the pulmonary measurement and the blood collection result.

In light of the above evidence, the time when the defendant was found to have suffered from a traffic accident and the time when the defendant was found to have been found to have been 100 minutes or more from the time when the defendant completed drinking. Thus, the time of driving in the judgment is deemed to have come after the time when the blood alcohol concentration was reduced. Thus, the blood alcohol concentration level at the time of collecting blood is higher than the time of driving.

In general, it cannot be seen that the result of blood collection is more accurate than the result of the respiratory measurement, and in light of such circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has driven at least 0.103% of blood alcohol concentration.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.

3. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment.

4. Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act involving Costs of Trial.

arrow