2015 Highest 149 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Drinking)

OOO (61 years, South Korea), Company Board

Ison (Lawsuits) and Kim Jong-Un (Trial)

Attorneys Kim Yong-ra (Korean National Assembly Line)

June 18, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant: (a) on September 26, 2014: around 53, Ulsan-gu Seogwon 11-ro, Ulsan-gu; and (b) blood alcohol alcohol farming on the road before a project for the creation of a 11-way road.

Do 0 0. 111% under the influence of alcohol 0 x Gu 8 - a car with a low-est car for the Gu 8.

2. Determination

According to the records of this case, at around 26 September 26, 2014: 21:53, the defendant was parked in the left-hand side of the main direction for the driver's seat of the driver's vehicle located in the front of the 11-ro, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, Seoul-gu, for a part of the 11-lane of the driver's seat of the driver's vehicle in front of the main direction. The defendant was parked in a place less than 152 meters away from the location of the accident.

On September 26, 2014, the defendant found his/her blood alcohol content is measured 0.156% as of September 22, 2014; the light tag was found; the defendant was found to be seated in his/her house at the defendant's house on September 26, 2014; the defendant voluntarily driven in the Ulsan Heavy Police Station at his/her discretion on September 26, 2014; the alcohol content is measured at 0.156%; the defendant's blood alcohol content was measured at 0.15m alcohol content was deducted from 435m alcohol content at the defendant's house at the time of his/her accident; the defendant's 1m alcohol content was found to have not been found to have been found to have not been found to have been found to have been found to have been 5m alcohol content at the time of his/her death (750mmmark - 435m alcohol content was found to have not been found to have been 15m alcohol content at the time of the above 65m alcohol content.

① After driving the police at the time, the Defendant told the police at the time, that he drank one-half of the son’s body, and the police discovered the Defendant’s illness of the 750 foot son’s body with the remaining 435 marl from the cooling house to the Defendant’s house (the Defendant did not present one-way disease of the 750 foot son’s body). The Defendant denied a drunk driving from the investigative agency to this court, and stated that the Defendant only denied the fact of the son’s body from the time of the accident to the time of the accident.

② On September 26, 2014, when the instant traffic accident occurred, from around 53 to around 22:20 on the same day on which the police officer discovered a defendant who was in the defendant’s dwelling room from around September 26, 2014, it does not seem entirely impossible for the defendant to drink the amount of one-half of one-half of one-half of one son per son.

③ Even if the Defendant had drinking prior to driving of the instant case, the investigation was not conducted on the volume of alcohol taken by the Defendant, the kind of alcohol, the time of drinking, the time of drinking, the place of drinking alcohol, the Defendant’s usual drinking habits, etc. Rather, the Defendant, until September 26, 2014, 20:50, sent the instant traffic accident during the Defendant’s house, while serving in the house and serving in the house of the Defendant, claimed that the Defendant would drink and drink alcohol after drinking, and submitted materials therefrom, while the Defendant was present at the investigative agency, the Defendant was present at the company.

In order to determine whether a person can drink alcohol during work or during meal hours, whether a person can drink alcohol at the time of work or during meal, whether a person can drink alcohol before his/her arrival at the house after his/her retirement, the hours during which he/she left the house at that time, the defendant's club line after his/her retirement, whether the defendant dices alcohol in his/her house before the occurrence of the accident in this case, and if the defendant had a fact of drinking alcohol in his/her house after the accident in this case, it seems that the investigation on the degree of the amount is not conducted.

(4) As seen earlier, the Defendant is likely to drink a considerable amount of alcohol after driving, and the Defendant is found to have a pulmonary measuring instrument without excluding both additional amount of alcohol claimed by the Defendant.

With respect to the result of the measurement of blood alcohol concentration and the application of the Hemark formula on the 315mml of the identified alcoholic beverage alone, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant driving is 0.11%.

⑤ Prior to the occurrence of the instant accident on the record, the Defendant cannot confirm the type, quantity, and time of drinking alcohol, and if it is difficult for the Defendant to exclude the Plaintiff from drinking alcohol room in his house, as seen earlier, it is difficult to determine whether the time of drinking alcohol driving or the time of drinking alcohol measurement is the point at which blood alcohol concentration rise. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.11% solely on the basis of the aforementioned measurement result and the fridmark’s application.

(6) When considering the facts reported by a witness, the part damaged by a vehicle and its degree, etc., the defendant

It seems that he was aware of the occurrence of an accident at the time. However, it is often possible to say that a drinking driver was under the influence of alcohol at the time, but it is often possible to think that a drinking driver was under the influence of alcohol even if he was not aware of the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time, on the ground that he was aware of the occurrence of an accident, even if he was under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

The judgment of innocence shall be pronounced in accordance with the latter part of Article 325, and the summary of the judgment of innocence shall not be disclosed in accordance with the proviso of Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Lee Gyeong-won