logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.07.07 2016노47
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) and the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act, among the facts charged in the instant case, found the Defendant guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act and sentenced a fine of KRW 2 million, and found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (toxicated Driving) and the Road Traffic Act in the upper concurrent relation between the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving), and dismissed the prosecution on the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Therefore, since only the prosecutor appealed on the remaining part except the dismissed part, the dismissed part of the judgment of the court below becomes final and conclusive separately and only the guilty part (including the innocent part of the reasons) is subject to the judgment of the court.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part), the fact that the defendant voluntarily signed and sealed the blood collection consent form with awareness can be acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby denying all the admissibility of evidence related to the blood collection inspection, thereby having rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged.

B. The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won in penalty) is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On September 5, 2014, the Defendant driven a motor bicycle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 200 meters at the distance of about 00 meters from the front road of the area of the YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

B. The lower court’s judgment 1) The evidence collected in breach of the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act is not in compliance with the lawful procedure prepared to guarantee fundamental human rights, and thus cannot be used as evidence for conviction in principle, and the foregoing legal doctrine also applies to secondary evidence obtained based on the aforementioned legal doctrine.

If so,

arrow