(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노1455 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.01.11 2017노1455

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, even if the facts charged in the instant case were fully convicted, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the instant facts charged were proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

The defendant was acquitted on the ground that it is difficult to see it.

1) The Defendant did not drive the police who was dispatched at the time of the instant case, despite having turned on the starting of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the vehicle.

The court below made a statement to the same effect.

2) At an investigative agency, F, who is a witness, submitted a statement to the effect that “the defendant considered to drive a vehicle of the defendant,” but in the court of original instance, “the defendant did not directly see the driving of the vehicle.”

The vehicle was under the influence of alcohol, but the vehicle was not parked in the parking space and was driven in another place.

The F made a statement to the effect that it is not well-filled as to whether he or she made his or her speech while under the influence of alcohol, and that it is difficult to believe the F’s statement as it is.

3) On the day of the instant case, it appears that the E restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) had not been thoroughly managed due to the lack of parking or passage of an external vehicle in the parking lot prior to the opening of the business. As such, the possibility that the Defendant from the beginning did not park his vehicle in the parking space cannot be ruled out.

4) G in the court of the court below, “The parking of the Defendant out of a parking space is due to the fact that the Defendant left the parking space to a large-scale moving to a water cleaning relation for parking lots, and even though not, the Defendant did not park the vehicle in the parking space accurately as the Defendant did.

1.2.2 The sum total of the amounts referred to in paragraph 1.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.10.22 2015노1886

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.29 2014나63673

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2016나45143

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.04 2016고단2473

-울산지방법원 2017.11.09 2016고정1280