beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact that: (a) the alcohol concentration of the Defendant’s blood misunderstanding was limited to the degree of suspension of a driver’s license with 0.09%; (b) the Defendant did not recognize a shock accident of the victim E; (c) the Defendant received an accident from an insurance company normally after the occurrence of the instant accident; and (d) the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant does not have one of the memory at the time of the police investigation, it was merely on the premise that the punishment for the instant crime would be unfilled; (c) the Defendant was accurately memory at the time of the accident; and (d) the Defendant was able to drive the instant accident after the replacement of the vehicle; and (e) the instant accident occurred due to the lack of manipulation in the first operation
shall not be deemed to exist.
Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the imprisonment of eight months, the suspension of the execution of two years, and the lecture attendance order of compliance driving 40 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts
A. Determination of whether a person constitutes “a state in which normal driving is difficult due to influence of alcohol” should be made by taking into account not only the level of driver’s driving, but also alcohol smelling, whether the person can walk immediately, such as behavior before and after a traffic accident, driver’s condition such as the situation of the traffic accident, circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the traffic accident, degree of decrease in the ability to exercise due attention to the traffic situation, degree of the operation of the vehicle driving device, and whether the operation of the vehicle driving device was properly adjusted (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decision 2008Hun-Ga11, May 28, 2009). (b) Determination of the lower court and the trial court are legitimate.