logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.06.08 2016노602
교통사고처리특례법위반등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) of the Defendant’s additional drinking time (18:34) from the Defendant’s additional drinking time to the time of measurement of drinking (18:57) and there was an interval of about 23 percent from the blood alcohol concentration at the time of measurement of drinking;

It is difficult to see, even if so, that

Even if the defendant's presumed blood alcohol level is considerably higher than 0.081%, and the victim stated that the defendant was snicking immediately after the traffic accident in this case, and that the defendant was snicking, the police officer at the time of control also stated that the defendant was snicking, the snow was snicking, and face color was snicking, and that the defendant was 0.05% or more of alcohol level at the time of the driving and the traffic accident in this case. In light of the above, it is sufficient to recognize that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol level at least 0.05% of alcohol level at the time of the traffic accident in this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise and thereby erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court: (a) there is no evidence to specify the Defendant’s initial drinking time and the final drinking time before driving; and (b) the Defendant was driving a drinking alcohol from July 13, 2015, on the grounds that there was no evidence to specify the Defendant’s initial drinking time and

Since the defendant was prosecuted, he was drank immediately after Skis in Skis.

A. At the time of the instant traffic accident, when 40-minutes from the time of driving and the time of drinking, it cannot be readily concluded that the blood alcohol level was lower at the time of the instant traffic accident. ② In addition, after paying the instant traffic accident, the Defendant conducted an additional measurement of drinking after 23 minutes from the time of drinking. At the time of measuring the alcohol level, the Defendant was at the time of measuring the additional alcohol level.

There is considerable room for seeable point, ③ Whether the blood alcohol concentration after drinking reaches the highest level of the time until it reaches the highest level of the blood, and the credibility of it is still known scientificly.

arrow