logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.29 2015고정4820
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 23, 2015, the Defendant driven a Cbeer or a car at around 0.176% under the influence of alcohol during blood at around 23:20 on November 23, 2015 to E in front of the road located in the same Dong from the Sinsan-dong in Busan Island.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving at home, report on the circumstances of the driver at home, and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the designation of drinking control points, photographs of traffic commuting service areas;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) (excluding punishment) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. At the time of the summary of the argument, the point where the defendant was first controlled is on the street from E, the police control point, to approximately 150 meters away from the 150-meter "the 156 Mad World Cup point in Busan, Busan, the point where the police officer directly operated the defendant's vehicle on the ground of drinking, and measured drinking by the police officer to E, the point where the police officer directly operated the defendant's vehicle on the ground of drinking, and such police officer's act is illegal accompanying, and thus, the result of the drinking test conducted after the voluntary accompanying

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the witness D, a controlling police officer, posted a warning to prevent an escape vehicle in the vicinity of the control point, or did not place a warning to a remote place, such as the location of the modern automobile mountain site claimed by the Defendant, or provided that the police officer did not directly operate the vehicle of the controlled person; ② the Defendant’s wife F went to the E-ray control point where the police officer is walking the vehicle.

. make a statement.

arrow