beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant's act is not a road under the Road Traffic Act, and the parking lot in the building of the C hotel in this case does not constitute a drinking driving.
B. Since the fact-finding report contains some different contents from the fact-finding report, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
C. The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing (fines 5,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "driving" means "driving of a motor vehicle or horse on a road (including places other than a road in the case of Articles 44, 45, 54 (1), 148, and 148-2) in accordance with the original usage method (including the operation of a motor vehicle or horse)" (Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "working of a motor vehicle or horse on a road means using the motor vehicle or horse on a road in accordance with the original usage method (including the operation of a motor vehicle or horse)" (Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act was amended by Act No. 10382, Jul. 23, 2010). The defendant's assertion is without merit.
B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, in particular, the defendant's legal statement at the court below, the report on the situation of the driver with the driver with the driving skills, and the inquiry about the result of the crackdown on drinking driving, etc., the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
The Defendant asserts that the motive for driving is different from the facts, and that the time of detection is contradictory to the time stated in the written consent of voluntary driving, among the contents stated in the written report of the circumstances of the driver, and therefore, it is part of the above written consent or written consent, as the Defendant asserts for domestic affairs.