beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. On March 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on March 27, 2009, and on February 1, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on February 1, 201.
Nevertheless, at around 02:30 on May 22, 2013, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with approximately KRW 20 meters in the second cycle road located in the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan area, Nam-gu, Gwangju metropolitan area at approximately 0.150% of alcohol concentration (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).
2. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. In this context, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit to be infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.
According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that D, a substitute driver under the influence of alcohol at the same time as the facts charged, drives the instant vehicle from the place where the instant vehicle was driven to the side of the second cycle, and the fact that D, a substitute driver under the influence of alcohol at the same time as the facts charged, is recognized.
However, according to the above evidence, the following facts are revealed: ① at the time, D is driving the instant vehicle and driving the 2nd cycle road, which is a toll road, and was on the top of the steering on the 2nd cycle road; ② at the time, D does not use the road as a common road; ② the dispute over the Defendant who is based on the use of the toll road was raised, and ② such dispute is more.