(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.04 2018노396 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.04 2018노396

도로교통법위반(음주측정거부)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant, while under influence of alcohol, may recognize the fact that the defendant had ever driven a motor vehicle with awareness, and even

Even if the defendant was driving alcohol in light of the objective circumstances at the time of the request for alcohol measurement;

As long as there were reasonable grounds to recognize the defendant, the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act was established against the defendant who refused the request. However, on the contrary premise, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant was “driving” a motor vehicle in food;

As to the assertion that it should be seen, the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, held that in the judgment (the conduct No. 5 or No. 20 on the side of the third party 5 or the same conduct) the Defendant was driving the vehicle with the intention of driving or driving the vehicle, based on the intention of driving or driving the vehicle.

such terms cannot be readily concluded.

In light of the records, if the court below duly adopted and examined the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant moved the 'P' to 'D' to 'D') and there is an error of misconception of facts alleged by the prosecutor.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument cannot be accepted.

B. That the Defendant actually did not “driving” a vehicle

Even if a person was objectively driving under drinking;

As long as there are reasonable grounds to recognize the establishment of a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (refluence of drinking), a motor vehicle, etc. is under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.12.07 2018노2936

-의정부지방법원 2017.07.14 2017노909

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.17 2016노3284

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.06.01 2016고정46

-수원지방법원 2016.05.13 2015노3978