logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.01.07 2015고정506
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 27, 2014, at around 07:50, the Defendant driven a Ka car owned by the Defendant under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.184 percent from the Do in front of the D cafeteria located in Jeju-si, to the road front of the Do Do Do Do Do Gun Gun Do Do Do Gun Do Do Do Do Gun Do Gun Do Do Gun Do Do Gun Do Gun Do

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Statement report on the circumstances of a driver driving a drinking, notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving, report on the circumstances of driving a drinking, and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Recommendation for investigation;

1. Application of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes to each relevant photograph;

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

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the Defendant has not driven a vehicle while driving a vehicle in the state as stated in its reasoning, and driving a vehicle of the Defendant at the time and place as indicated in its holding is an acting driver.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court: ① at the time of the detection of drinking alcohol, the Defendant’s vehicle was flicked, and the Defendant was flicked in the driver’s seat; ② the Defendant cannot find objective materials consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that she was driving a vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no other circumstance found that she was driving a vehicle on the day of the instant case. ③ Rather, the Defendant her drinking together on the instant day.

In order to artificially secure the statements consistent with the F, etc.'s argument, there is a need for further doubt as to the credibility of the Defendant's assertion, and ④ the Defendant did not drive the vehicle.

arrow