logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2012.10.25 2012고정240
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On August 14, 2011, at around 04:46, the Defendant driven a Cro-car in the state of alcohol with approximately 30 meters alcohol concentration of 0.137 percent from a section of approximately 30 meters away from the front of the convenience store in Part GS25 city to the front of the said road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Each police statement of E and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on the results of the drinking driving control, the notification of the results of the drinking driving control, the situation of drinking drivers;

1. Article 148-2 Subparag. 1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 10790, Jun. 8, 201); the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the provisional payment order argues that he/she had not driven the above vehicle under the influence of alcohol and has parked the above vehicle on the road front of the said money first before drinking, although he/she had never driven it under the influence of alcohol.

However, in light of the consistent contents of the statement in D's legal statement and each police's statement about D and E, the facts of the crime in the judgment can be sufficiently recognized (the defendant stated that he was in the above vehicle to wait for the substitute driver at the time of the instant case, but the same day of the instant case and the place where the defendant dices alcohol (the "F" point in the operation of the defendant) and the place where the defendant parked the instant vehicle (the "F" point in the operation of the defendant), despite the fact that the defendant left the substitute driver and left the vehicle on his behalf, the above argument by the defendant is rejected).

arrow