(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.09.04 2013노2821 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.09.04 2013노2821

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental or physical disorder with no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, it may be recognized that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, but the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had the history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and the blood alcohol content of the Defendant at the time of the instant crime is extremely high to 0.124%, and the Defendant’s blood alcohol content is not good, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance leading to the instant crime, and circumstances before and after the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment cannot be deemed to be unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the application column of the judgment of the court below

1. Article 25 of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure provides that “The former Road Traffic Act (Act No. 10790)” as stated in the pertinent provision of the Act on Criminal Procedure is deemed to be a clerical error in the item (i) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 2011; Act No. 10790, Dec. 9, 201). Thus, ex officio correction is made pursuant to

참조조문

-도로교통법

-형사소송규칙 제25조

-형사소송법 제364조 제4항

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.12.04 2015노2222

-부산고등법원 2013.06.12 2013노180

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2015.03.26 2014고합113

-대전지방법원 2020.10.22 2018노3662

-전주지방법원 2013.12.20 2013노1164