logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.26 2016고정670
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

On April 3, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.115% in blood around 23:30 on April 3, 2016, driven a Drocketing car in the section of about 20km from the front side of the Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-type Do-U.S. Do-S.

Reasons for innocence

1. Any person who drives a drinking alcohol;

According to the records, it is acknowledged that the defendant driven a vehicle with drinking as stated in the facts charged, the police officers who reported by a witness suspected that the defendant driven a vehicle with drinking alcohol as stated in the facts charged, visit the defendant's residence to the district in the form of voluntary accompanying at the time when the driving of drinking was completed and for a long time, and the defendant conducted a breath measurement of alcohol according to the breath measurement method as a result of the defendant conducted a breath measurement of alcohol level of 0.115% alcohol level.

Police officers, at the time of visiting the dwelling of the defendant, have driven alcohol by the defendant.

It is sufficiently recognized that there was a circumstance to suspect.

2. Determination on the legality and admissibility of evidence of voluntary accompanying

(a) Dozin as to whether the defendant's voluntary accompanying was duly made;

In cases where it is evident by objective circumstances that an investigator informed the suspect that he/she may refuse to accompany the suspect prior to accompanying the investigation agency, etc. in the course of investigation, or that the suspect accompanied was accompanied by the investigation agency, etc., at any time, by the voluntary will of the suspect, such as where he/she is recognized that the suspect could freely leave the accompanying place, etc., was accompanied by the investigation agency, etc., the legality of accompanying is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do6810, Jul. 6, 2006; 2012Do8890, Sept. 13, 2012). The determination of the foregoing voluntary accompanying is the time and place of accompanying.

arrow