logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.12.04 2013노343
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) revealed the fact that the Defendant driven a car as stated in the facts charged in the instant indictment and used it to take advantage of the E Convenience points, but thereafter, the Defendant was guilty of the charge of this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles on the premise that it was not strictly proven, on the basis of the premise that the deduction of the alcohol concentration taken by the Defendant on the day of the instant case from the alcohol level (0.118%) did not amount to 0.05%, even though the deduction of the alcohol concentration taken by the Defendant on the day of the instant case does not amount to 0.05%, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case by applying the Fmark formula based on the premise that it was not strictly proven.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal. The court below held that the defendant argued in the judgment of the court below that "the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" had the following circumstances, i.e., the above G consistently from the investigative agency to the court of the court of the court below to the effect that the defendant did not drink from the time when the defendant entered the convenience store to the time when the police officer arrived, and that the defendant did not drink, and that on May 23, 2012, the defendant stated that the defendant had drinking drinking at the convenience store (360ml) and 500ml drinking at the convenience store at the time when the police officer was examined, but on May 28, 2012 after he stated that the defendant had drinking drinking at the convenience store which was investigated by G on the above convenience store, the court below measured whether he did not drink drinking or did not drink only the amount of drinking, and that he did not collect drinking drinking alcohol in accordance with G and the amount of drinking alcohol to the extent that he collected.

arrow