207 High Court Decision 1175 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Retoxicated Driving)

Cho** (60*********1********)***) members of the Company.

Daejeon Geong-gu

Republic of Korea (Seoul Metropolitan City)

United Kingdom of Austria

Attorney Choi So-gu (Law Firm Gyeong-gu)

November 2, 2007

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,00,00.

Defendant who converted 50,000 won into one day when the above fine is not paid by the Defendant;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Facts of crime

Defendant

On April 10, 2007: Seosan-gu, Daejeon, while under the influence of alcohol at about 40: 0 alcohol concentration of 0.150%.

Daejeon 1-2 meters at the 104-Dong-ro apartment complex 104, Daejeon 3***** Ho-doldgs;

A car driving has been driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness KimA

1. A written statement of the occurrence of a traffic accident by B;

1. A survey report on actual condition;

1. A report on detection of a host driver and a circumstantial statement of a host driver;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 150 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Fines)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Issues

The Defendant, while drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, she was seated in the driver’s seat of the instant vehicle owned by the Defendant, which is a water-driven motor vehicle, and she did not walked at the time of the instant case, but she only comes to conflict with the front vehicle by a vehicle going through and going through a string, and the facts charged are denied by her driving.

Therefore, according to the above evidence, such as the witness KimA's legal statement, etc., the defendant was found to have received a vehicle owned by BB, which was parked in front of the defendant's vehicle while under the influence of alcohol while driving the vehicle normally in order to move and park the above AB-owned vehicle under the influence of alcohol. Even if the defendant was parked in the above AB-owned vehicle under the influence of alcohol, as shown in the result of the on-site inspection by this court, as shown in the on-site inspection by this court, the above AB-owned vehicle, which was parked in the same speed of the river at the time, was parked in the same speed of the vehicle at the time, and even if the vehicle was parked in the front of the movement system, the vehicle was parked in order to allow the defendant to move the above vehicle at the time, and thus, the defendant's assertion that this constitutes "an act of driving under the Road Traffic Act" is without reason.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Governing Justice

1) Article 2 subparagraph 24 of the Road Traffic Act, the term "driving" means the original use of a vehicle or horse on the road.

(2) If it appears that the act of driving has been commenced, it shall be deemed that the act of driving is commenced.

(1) as a subjective element of the act, has the intention of driving as an objective element.

There should be an action to go through the Dong with an attitude (Supreme Court 1 November 13, 1998).

High 98Da37972, see Supreme Court Decision 98Da37972, and in this case, the defendant is subjectively responsible for moving or parking the vehicle.

) Inasmuch as he/she sits into a driver’s seat and sticked to the key to the starting device, he/she is found to drive (the objective element).

It is reasonable to see that all necessary requirements are satisfied.