beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the defendant parked the vehicle of the defendant while a substitute driver parked on the road. Thus, the defendant driven about 10 meters without choice to find a parking space to prevent the accident and parked in the open space. This constitutes an emergency evacuation and thus the illegality should be avoided. However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.
2. Determination:
A. On March 7, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on March 7, 2007, and was sentenced to a fine of 4 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Ansan Branch of the Suwon District Court on April 11, 2008 and violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice.
On October 23, 2015, the Defendant driven Ecller’s car at the 10m section of the road in front of the D Hospital in the Gyeonggi Eclific City, while under the influence of alcohol of 00:0% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.120%.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s assertion was rejected on the ground that, in consideration of the circumstances described above, the Defendant could not be deemed to have been in an emergency situation where the Defendant had no choice but to drive a vehicle in drinking condition at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant’s conviction was based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant’s allegation was found to have been found to have parked the instant vehicle on the side of the parking zone at the Defendant’s request, not on the road; (b) the parked part on the road but on the side of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (c) the Defendant was in a state where the parking lot was parked at the time after the parking of the vehicle was parked; and (d) the Defendant could have parked the vehicle in the parking zone on the right side of the vehicle; and (b) the Defendant
(c)review the case;