(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.29 2017노212

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.29 2017노212

일반교통방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing) was present at the beginning of the assembly on the day by the defendant, but there was no fact that the defendant occupied the road at the time because it was difficult to drive due to the unsatisfing of traffic accidents in 2014.

When the defendant considers economic difficulties due to the fact that he was unemployed on July 2015, the sentence of the court below (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake, the following facts are acknowledged.

From April 24, 2015 to 18:10 to 18:41, a photograph of the Defendant occupied the lane of 1 Roter by the conference participants (Evidence record 10-13, 130-136 pages). The Defendant again stated the Defendant’s participation on the day from 18:59 to 18:59 of the day in the trial or on the day from 18:13 to 18:36 of the day (Evidence record, the evidence record 60-62 pages). According to the Defendant’s transportation card use record, the Defendant again stated the Defendant’s participation on the day from 14:59 station to 18:59 station on the day from 18:59 station on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on the day on which the Defendant made a statement on the day on the day on the day on the day on which the Defendant’s participation in the trial (the day on the 10th day).

A photograph of expansion of face of 7-8 face of evidence (which is not submitted as evidence) and a photograph of 10-13, 130-136 of evidence records is not a photograph taken by the defendant.

The photograph of the upper part of the 15th page of the evidence record (which was not produced as evidence) is taken by the defendant. However, it cannot be known whether the photograph was taken at the time of the assembly of this case, and the seal belonging to the lower part of the 15th page of the evidence record is different from the photograph of the person claimed by the investigative agency to have taken the defendant.

The photographs at the bottom of 15 pages of evidence records (which shall be admitted as evidence).

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노3322

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.20 2017고단415

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.12 2015고단882

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.23 2016고단4124

-서울서부지방법원 2016.01.21 2015고정669