logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.10.02 2018고정73
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a motor vehicle B. A.D.

On March 29, 2018, the Defendant driven approximately 90 meters from the bus stops in order to ensure that the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol level of 0.148% during blood transfusions (YOMM 00:05) at around 00:05, the Defendant driven approximately 90 meters from the bus stops in order to the front of the Western church at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. 112 A list of reported cases;

1. On-site photographs;

1. The ledger using sobling measuring instruments;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal investigation;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime while under the influence of alcohol to the extent of 0.148% in 198 while under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.148%, even though there was a record of criminal punishment of a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in 1998, a fine of KRW 3 million in 1999, and a fine of KRW 1.5 million in 201.

The Defendant alleged that the substitute driver who driven a vehicle was driving a vehicle at approximately 90 meters in the middle of the distance of the second accident with the risk of the second accident at the wind, and that the vehicle was parked and the substitute driver was diving. However, according to the 112 Report Processing Table (Evidence No. 6 page), on-site photographs (Evidence No. 7 page), and the police examination report (Evidence No. 20, 21 page No. 21 of the Evidence Records) against the Defendant on the crime of this case, the substitute driver was driving a vehicle at the bus platform against the Defendant while driving a vehicle at the vehicle at the middle of the distance of the private intersection, and the Defendant was driving a vehicle at the location of another vehicle upon receiving a report.

arrow