logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.04.24 2013고정2481
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is around 23:52 on June 17, 2013, the Defendant driven approximately 1 km up to the front of the “Hnodes bank” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.216% of alcohol level.

2. First of all, in order to recognize admissibility of evidence as factual relevance to the result of a psychological physiological test, the following three conditions must be met: first, if a false statement is made, the change of a certain psychological state occurs; second, a change in the psychological state causes a certain physiological reaction; third, a accurate determination of whether the speech of the person is false or not due to the physiological reaction; third, the determination of whether the last biological reaction is false or not shall be a device capable of accurately measuring the physiological reaction of the person who has consented to the examination of the final detection method; second, the determination of whether the person is false or not shall be a device capable of accurately measuring the physiological reaction of the person who has consented to the examination of the final detection method; the preparation of the question and the method of the examination shall be a reasonable method; it shall be possible to secure accuracy only if the inspector has the ability to objectively and accurately read the measuring content of the detection machine; and so, unless the above various requirements are met, the examination result of the detection machine cannot be admitted as evidence under the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do526).

Next, the following facts are revealed: (a) at the time, I, who was operating Hnogate, called F at F stores around 23:36 on the day of the instant case; (b) however, I, in this Court, was frequently involved in an order phone, but it was impossible to deliver it, and therefore, whether the Defendant was the Defendant on the day of the instant case even at the time of the statement by the police.

arrow