logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2014.09.16 2014고정626
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who drives a wing vehicle C.

At around 15:40 on November 7, 2012, the Defendant driven the said vehicle at an insular distance from the main intake of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.216% to the old age in front of the Busan High School in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S., U.S., Ulsan-do., U.S., Ulsan-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act that choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not drive a motor vehicle, and the Defendant’s model E was driving.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., D's statement to the effect that "the defendant drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time" is consistent and specific, and its credibility is high, while each statement made by the investigation agency of the defendant and the defendant in the investigation agency of the defendant and the defendant in the above court is inconsistent with each other, and it is difficult to believe that the contents of the statement do not coincide with each other, and that it does not coincide with on-site images, etc., at the time of the instant case, the fact that the defendant drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.216% at the time of the instant case is sufficiently recognized.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

arrow