logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노460
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, driven the 1/2 residual level of fluence on the fluor World Cup, was merely driving on the fluorine 1/2, and thus, the blood alcohol concentration level cannot be increased by 0.064%.

In this regard, the enforcement officer did not provide the defendant with sufficient water to see the drafting at the time of the measurement of alcohol, and the defendant was under the control of self-consumption while entering the mouth clean system with alcohol ingredients, and the alcohol concentration was measured among blood 0.05% or more.

In addition, while the defendant requested blood measurement at the time, the police officer in charge of the crackdown refused blood measurement without any justifiable reason, the blood measurement has a higher value when blood measurement was conducted.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (the amount of KRW 5 million and the cost of the lawsuit) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, even in the lower court’s determination on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

The lower court recognized the circumstances found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and convicted the instant facts charged.

In light of the above evidence, a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. On April 21, 201, the Defendant was punished three times as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, including the past record of having been punished by a fine of KRW 2.5 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and was punished as a fine.

arrow