logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2013.05.09 2013고정170
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of B Poter cargo vehicles.

On November 9, 2012, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol 0.050% of alcohol concentration on the old-si Hospital, Gowon-si, Seoul Metropolitan City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the state of drinking drivers, reports on the state of drinking drivers, and reports on the state of standing statements, and regulations governing drinking driving;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that the drafting was made at the time of the so-called “breath test”, but the result of the so-called “breath test” was not acceptable because water was not drinking. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant was in charge of drafting at the time of the so-called “breath test”, and the blood alcohol concentration was 0.05% in the result of the breath test by the breath test. Although the Defendant stated that there was no objection to the result of the breath test by the breath test at the time of the police investigation, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant applied for the above regular trial and expressed his intent to object to the above measurement only after the considerable period has passed since the Defendant stated that there was no objection to the result of the breath test by the breath test at the time of the enforcement of the so-called “breath test”.

arrow