logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.12 2020노1648
도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal: Mental disorder and unreasonable sentencing;

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was operating the vehicle normally with his passenger at the time, ② the background leading up to the occurrence of the contact accident in this case (the background leading up to the back of the damaged vehicle) and the circumstances after the accident, ③ the Defendant’s vehicle was divided into the victim who was lowered from his seat immediately after the accident, ④ the contents and the situation at the time of each crime in this case, ⑤ the situation at the time of each crime, ⑤ the circumstances after the crime in this case, etc., it does not seem that the Defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of each crime in this case.

Rather, there is a very high probability that the Defendant would not memory his behavior according to the symptoms of blackout (blak-out, inner cloaking) of a witness of temporary memory due to his taking-out after the instant case, which affected the input and interpretation of information by lowering alcohols’ activities of a sea cell, a temporary memory repository, but in such cases, other parts of brains are known to maintain normal activities).

Ultimately, the defendant's mental disorder cannot be accepted.

B. Under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle of unfair sentencing, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment.

other than, e.g.

arrow