logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.17 2017고정80
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 12, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.130% during blood transfusion around 01:00, driven B Laren motor vehicle at approximately approximately KRW 500 meters from the front day of the insular restaurant in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, etc. to the lower day of the fire-fighting bridge according to the same old Olympic Games.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on the detection of drivers engaged in driving and the statement of the circumstances of drivers engaged in driving;

1. Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment order is asserted to the effect that the result of drinking cannot be believed because it is likely that the measurement level has higher than the alcohol level in actual blood, because the defendant was not a part of his/her body before the measurement of drinking.

However, the following facts acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence are as follows: ① The time when the Defendant was found to have taken a drinking test was 3 hours after the Defendant’s final drinking; ② the Defendant did not raise any objection to 0.130% of the amount of alcohol concentration measured by the respiratory measuring instrument at the time of drinking control (Evidence 13 pages). According to the Defendant’s circumstantial statement (Evidence 13 pages), the “whether 20 minutes have elapsed after drinking, and the measure” column is written in the same language as “the time when about 20 minutes have elapsed after drinking,” and the Defendant’s c) was written in the same word as “the time when 20 minutes have passed after drinking, and the Defendant’s 0.130% of the amount of alcohol concentration measured from the blood alcohol measured as above exceeds 0.1% of the punishment standard; and the Defendant’s pulmonary content and other alcohol content remaining in the pulmonary air discharged from the mouth at the time of drinking measurement.

arrow