logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.05.26 2017노252
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In light of the fact that there is an error in the time of CCTV images with the summary of the grounds for appeal, there is no room for a proxy engineer to get off the CCTV images, and that the defendant made the phone call to the insurance company after the occurrence of the case, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the facts charged in the instant case are sufficiently recognized.

① On March 18, 2016, the Defendant was under the control of the police officer called out due to an accident that had the front wheels on a farming road near the apartment site in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. on March 18, 2016. At the time of the control (Evidence No. 1, 65 pages). (2) According to CCTV images, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s vehicle was parked more than one hour after entering the apartment parking lot around March 18, 2016, when the vehicle was parked in around 00:06 and around 01:37 of the same day, and at that time, it does not appear that the Defendant was absent from the apartment parking lot.

(3) The defendant has been driving by proxy a driver.

Although it is argued, there is no objective data to support the defendant's assertion, such as the monetary details of the substitute driver, personal information of the substitute driver, etc.

④ The Defendant stated to the first control police officer that “A substitute driver was driven on the entrance of an apartment with drinking alcohol, but he was driven from the entrance of the apartment to the farm road.” (Evidence No. 32 pages of the evidence record). Fifth, the Defendant was driving a substitute driver from the entrance of the apartment to the farm road on the ground that it was not confirmed that a substitute driver was driven on the CCTV image.

One of the arguments, the defendant and the acting driver.

arrow