beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a year and six months.
except that this shall not apply.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the instant traffic accident, which led to the mistake of the facts about the non-crime and the dismissal part of the prosecution, Defendant A is deemed to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol at the time, and if it is deemed that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of blood does not reach 0.05% in the case of the instant accident, if the blood alcohol concentration at the time does not reach 0.05% in blood, Defendant A driven a vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of at least 0.05% in blood.
full recognition may be accepted.
However, the court below ruled not guilty of Defendant A’s violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) and dismissed Defendant A’s charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Bodily Injury) against Victim B, F, G, H, and I. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant A (two years of suspended execution in June of the imprisonment without prison labor) is too unhued and unfair.
B. Defendant B’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court as to the instant case in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s judgment: (a) found the instant traffic accident occurred while Defendant A driving a car after drinking alcohol and driving it on the road in front of the intersection distance in the Daejeon Pungdong-gu, Daejeon on December 30, 2015; (b) determined that the police measured the state of drinking alcohol of Defendant A using a drinking measuring instrument at around 03:35 on the same day; and (c) found that the alcohol level of Defendant A measured at 0.058% in light of the aforementioned legal principles.