beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant of mistake of facts is only drank a vehicle after driving the vehicle from the house to the village head, and has not driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below's decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the reporter who reported the defendant 112 had observed the defendant driving a balg and parked in the balg, and the drinking volume was confirmed by the police officer who conducted a drinking test to the defendant on the vehicle, and the defendant's drinking was not discovered among them. ② At the time of control, the circumstantial statement of the drinking driver was stated in the statement of the drinking driver as "self" in the column of the departure point, "H market" in the objective point, and "0.091%" in the blood alcohol concentration column to the control point, and the defendant is stated as "0.091%" in the blood alcohol concentration column to the end of the documents mentioned above.
In the police investigation, the defendant argued that he was at the market from 11:00 on the day of the instant case, and that he driven a vehicle parked in the parking lot after drinking in the market to another place in the parking lot. However, the defendant's above assertion is not reliable, in light of the fact that the vehicle of the defendant was taken away from the market and that the CCTV in front of the entrance between the defendant's house and the parking lot was controlled immediately after 16:5 on the day of the entrance of the parking lot, and that the vehicle of the defendant was controlled immediately after 16:5, it is difficult to conclude that the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is established even if the defendant's assertion is based on the above argument, it is not possible to deny the establishment of the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act. In light of the fact that the defendant driven his vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.091%.
Accordingly, the defendant's status.