logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.24 2016노2254
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant 1’s breath measurement by breath measuring apparatus was conducted in a state where the Defendant was unable to put his/her place of business due to blood sampling, and police officers’ failure to undergo blood sampling measurement due to blood sampling. However, the Defendant’s conviction based on the blood sampling result by the above breath measuring apparatus, etc. was unlawful. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of KRW 3 million by the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing is excessively unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, etc., the fact that the Defendant received water from a police officer before being subject to a breath measurement due to breath measuring instrument and drinking water, the Defendant provided an explanation from a police officer about the breath measurement by blood sampling, but did not consent to blood sampling only at a hospital located in G located in his/her residence, and the fact that the Defendant did not consent to blood sampling is sufficiently recognized, and there is no other evidence suggesting that there was any illegality in other procedures.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted since the defendant's pulmonary measuring instrument was lawfully conducted by pulmonary measuring instrument.

B. On October 9, 2015, the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties did not properly comply with the blood alcohol measurement by the respiratory measuring apparatus on several occasions even though the Defendant was discovered at around 21:30 on October 21, 2015, and the result of the blood alcohol measurement at around 23:00 on the same day after the lapse of one half of the time was 0.116%, and the Defendant above.

arrow