(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.08.25 2016노42 | 리걸엔진

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) 제주지방법원 2016.08.25 2016노42

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendant does not have driven a vehicle while driving the vehicle as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

B. Even if the result of the measurement shows 0.184% of the blood alcohol level, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of driving is 0.184%.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination as to whether the Defendant had driven a vehicle while driving the vehicle on the part of the Defendant was based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court of the lower court, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court of the lower judgment: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle was in operation at the time of the detection of drinking; (b) the Defendant was seated in the seat of the vehicle; and (c) the Defendant was seated in the seat of the vehicle; and (d) there was no objective data corresponding to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was driving the vehicle on behalf of the Defendant; and (c) there was no other circumstance in which other person than the Defendant was driving the vehicle on the day of the instant case.

In order to artificially secure statements consistent with the F, etc., there is a need for further doubt as to the credibility of the Defendant’s assertion, as well as the fact that the Defendant has no smart key on the main grounds that he did not drive his vehicle, and the fact that the Defendant was unable to drive his vehicle, and that the proxy driver was waiting for a smart key because he was driving on the vehicle by driving the vehicle.

However, it has not been confirmed whether the above smart key was not actually discovered until the end, and even if the defendant's assertion that the smart key was lost, the defendant's vehicle is contracted once, even if the defendant's assertion was true.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.01.07 2015고정506

-춘천지방법원 2017.07.06 2016노630

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.14 2017노2940

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.24 2018노204

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.04.06 2015고단4171