logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.03.18 2014노4683
도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant forged the name of E, which is a paper of voluntary behavior, and submitted it to the police officer in charge, thereby exercising the above investigation signature.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized.

(1) At the time of the crackdown on Unlicensed Driving of this case, the Defendant: (a) while driving without the permission of this case, the Defendant got a foreigner registration number in the control police officer; and (b) prepared a voluntary behavior letter at the police station, and submitted it to the police officer in charge, stating it in English in the signature column,

(2) After inquiring of the Incheon Immigration Office, the police officer discovered that E does not have a legitimate status of stay, and the defendant responded to the examination of suspect after clearly expressing the police officer's accurate personal information.

(3) The Defendant consistently stated that “A driving practice was conducted in order to acquire a driver’s license” from an investigative agency to the trial court.

Furthermore, a judicial police officer, who initially investigated the circumstances in which E’s name was entered, received driving education from E consistently from the date of the second protocol of interrogation of the suspect to the court of the trial at the court of the trial, and, at the time of regulating, E knows that his/her foreigner registration number was not in face-to-face, while informing the police officer of his/her foreigner registration number as if he/she was E.

The above contents of the defendant's defense are specific and consistent, and are not specifically contradictory to the course of this case.

B. If so, there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant prepared and exercised a written voluntary action by forging the E’s signature only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

arrow