logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.05.13 2015고정935
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 10,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 21, 2015, the Defendant driven a Defendant’s CKan-Pack vehicle from around 22:08 to E parking lot under the influence of alcohol content of 0.149% (Yack-gu, Young-gu) during blood transfusion at around 0:10 meters at around 22:08 (Yack-gu, Young-gu).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. F's self-written statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes notifying the results of drinking control;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for Reduction of Quantity (Consideration of circumstances that may be considered for the reasons of driving alcohol, etc.);

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s argument regarding Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act attracting the Nowon Station: (a) the Defendant acknowledged the driving of a vehicle; (b) however, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it constitutes an emergency escape since an acting driver driven a vehicle on the road while driving the vehicle, and driving the vehicle on the road to prevent traffic interference and accident by leaving the vehicle on the road, and thus, driving the restaurant parking lot inevitably departing from the vehicle.

In order to constitute “emergency escape” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interest. Here, “act with considerable reason”, the act of escape must be the only means to protect the legal interest in danger, the second way to inflict the largest minor damage on the victim. Third, the profit to be compensated by the act of escape must be more superior to the profit that is infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics and the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 2006). The following circumstances can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated:

arrow