logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.10.12 2018노2258
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치사상)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the fact-misunderstanding (not guilty in the judgment of the court below) that the Defendant’s normal driving is difficult due to influence of alcohol when considering the following: (a) at the time of the accident described in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the instant accident”), the blood alcohol level was low; (b) the mold distance immediately after drinking was seen to the degree of driving; and (c) there was a circumstance in which the Defendant attempted to avoid the situation.

there was a circumstance to acknowledge that there was

Although it is reasonable to see the above facts charged, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant driven a car at the time and time as indicated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below where it is difficult to drive the car normally due to influence of drinking, and suffered injury to the victims as indicated in the

B. Determination 1) The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to drinking is limited to “a state in which normal driving is difficult due to influence of drinking,” regardless of whether a driver exceeds the statutory minimum level of alcohol level, unlike the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and is subject to punishment for the act of injuring or causing death of a person while driving a motor vehicle under such condition. This is because the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to drinking is a type of crime of occupational and real injury and requires the relation with the person as a result of such act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2017Do1519, Jan. 25, 2018; 2008Do7143, Nov. 13, 2008).

arrow