logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.02.09 2017고정262
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On December 23, 2016, the Defendant, at around 20:30 on the instant charges, driven a C 2 truck with a alcohol content of 0.053% (the application of the aforementioned dmark formula) from the 10-meter section from the 39 Samsung Factory’s front side to the 45-day freedom of wooding, and driving a C 2 truck with a alcohol content of around 10 meters from the 10-meter road to the front road.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the judgment of this court: (a) the police officer affiliated with the Bab Police Station D police box called the Defendant after receiving a report on the occurrence of a traffic accident causing a collision of parked vehicles; (b) the Defendant identified the person causing the said traffic accident; and (c) the Defendant’s blood content was found to be 0.107% (the investigation record No. 16 through 18); and (b) the police officer of the Bab Police Station F of the above case, who received the above case, conducted an investigation by the Defendant, on the basis of the Defendant’s statement, that the Defendant “the Defendant dices several cattle prior to the above traffic accident; and mathing at the restaurant close to the point of the accident,” on the premise that the Defendant’s blood content was 50 millimeters and 500 millimeters quantity at the point of the accident; and (d) applied the above dicmark, the Defendant’s blood content was 50% or less of the alcohol concentration calculated by the above 5050% alcohol concentration at the time of the above case.

However, even if all of the evidence presented by the prosecutor were examined, it is difficult to recognize that “the defendant 500§§® 500 mm ing her bottle,” which is the premise of the facts charged in the instant case, is difficult to acknowledge that “the defendant ingher drinking her bottled her bottle.” Rather, the defendant was under interrogation two times from G, and the defendant was under interrogation at the restaurant after the traffic accident, while drinking her alcohol in combination with the drinking in the restaurant after the traffic accident, the 500§® 50 mm mm, which he/she ordered to her to do so, is against

arrow