beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Around November 23, 2019, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.097% of the blood alcohol level on November 9, 2019, driven C Pote car at approximately three meters in front of Seocho-gu Seoul at a level of approximately three meters in front of Seocho-gu.
2. The running of drinking alcohol by the defendant and his defense counsel constitutes an emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act and thus, constitutes an offense.
3. Determination
A. In order to constitute “an act with reasonable grounds” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with reasonable grounds to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests, and in this context, the act of escape shall be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, and the act of escape shall be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, second, the act of escape shall be the most minor damage to the victim, third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape shall be more superior than the profit to be infringed upon, and fourth, the act of escape shall be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of the
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396 Decided April 13, 2006, etc.). B.
In light of the above legal principles, considering the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the court in this case, the defendant only moved to the right side side of the one-lane road (hereinafter “the road in this case”) to reduce traffic interference and accident risk, and there was no intention to drive the vehicle any more than 3 meters. In light of the defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time, the distance from which the vehicle was moved to the vehicle, the shape of the road in this case, and the situation of vehicle traffic, etc., the risk of the other person’s life and safety by the act of the defendant was deemed to have not been much significant, while the legal interests secured by the defendant’s act is rather than the interests infringed.