logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.01.28 2013고단1727
도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On November 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court on November 27, 2009, and a fine of KRW 4 million as a fine by the same court on September 19, 2012, respectively.

At around 21:40 on January 24, 2013, the Defendant, without obtaining a driver’s license, driven C vehicles at a section of approximately 100 meters from the front road of the head of Si/Gu, in the form of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.187%. The Defendant driven C vehicles at a section of about 100 meters from the front road of the head of Si/Gun/Gu to the front road of the head of Si/Gun/Gu.

2. We examine the date and time stated in the above facts charged and whether the Defendant driven C vehicle at the place.

According to the statement of D, following the occurrence of an accident between D driver and C vehicle, D and the Defendant may recognize that there was a dispute over the liability of the accident, and D did not regard that a person other than the Defendant was discharged from the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle.

However, according to the records of this case, considering the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s assertion from the police to the police’s examination as the suspect was driven by an acting engineer at the time from the time to the present court; (b) the period of 20 to 30 seconds after the contact accident occurred; and (c) the Defendant appeared at a place where approximately 50 meters away from the accident site; and (d) the Defendant did not regard the Defendant as the driver’s seat; (b) the evidence examined in this case and the circumstances acknowledged earlier are insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged of this case; and (c) there

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the court acquitted the defendant under the latter part of Article 325

arrow