logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.01.30 2019고단2851
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 26, 2018, at around 13:58, the Defendant driven a DNA Maz car while under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.101% from the Do in front of Pyeongtaek-si to the front road of the same city C.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, notification on the drinking driving control (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the evidence is not in compliance with due process during the breath test process and thus the admissibility of evidence should be denied. However, according to the witness's testimony, the result of blood alcohol level measurement in this part is not hearsay evidence, and according to witness's testimony, the defendant's entry into the water before the breath test was reported to the defendant through interpretation and asked whether the controlling police officer wants to take the breath measurement through interpretation, but the defendant did not wish to take the breath measurement, the admissibility of evidence is recognized).

1. Article 148-2 (2) 2 and Article 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; Act No. 16037, Jun. 25, 2019); the selection of a fine for a crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) 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. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant cannot be deemed to have proved that he driven the diesel containing alcohol ingredients under the influence of alcohol 0.101% under the influence of alcohol, since he was found to have driven the diesel under the influence of alcohol in the face of the breathic disease.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court’s lawful adoption and the evidence duly examined by the court, namely, F, the police officer of the instant control, refers to the Defendant’s entry into the water as water before the respiratory measurement.

arrow