logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2013.09.05 2012노2394
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant had not driven under drinking as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (1.5 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. At around 18:35, Feb. 24, 2012, the Defendant driven a motorcycle E, a motorcycle, while under the influence of alcohol of about 7 meters from the Do in front of the city of Sacc to the roads adjacent to the said D, with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.070%.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the grounds of F’s statement of the witness F, police statement of F with respect to the police statement, notification of the results of the influence of alcohol driving control, report on the situation of drinking drivers, investigation report, and on the field photograph of drinking driving.

C. (1) The judgment of this court is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial, and the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096 Decided June 25, 2009, etc.). (2) The Defendant, since the investigation agency and the investigation agency up to this court, came into the above D around February 24, 2012, which was operated by the Defendant, G, a vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege vege

arrow