logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2013.10.17 2013노993
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant's act of drinking driving in order to prevent the escape of the thief does not seem to have any danger at the time because the thief did not attempt to escape, and thus, there was a possibility that the thief could escape by opposing the thief, and thus, did not meet the requirements of emergency evacuation, etc., the court below acquitted him of this case as it constitutes an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In order to constitute “an act with considerable reason” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act with considerable reason to avoid the present danger of one’s own or another’s legal interests. The act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interests in danger, the act of escape should be the sole means to protect the legal interests in danger, the second method to give the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit compensated by the act of escape should be more superior to the profit that is infringed by it. Fourth, the act of escape must be a proper means in light of social ethics or the overall spirit of legal order.

(Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396 Decided April 13, 2006). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① at the time when the defendant arrived at the closed factory of the defendant's operation, C, D, and E used the vehicle to carry brine iron plates into the above factory. At the time, the defendant was mixed with the defendant, three theft offenders were involved, and the above larcenys were located near the vehicle. In light of the fact that the above larcenys were located near the road, the defendant as the defendant prevented access roads by driving the vehicle parked in the roadside.

arrow