logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.10.18 2017고정112
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On June 29, 2016, the Defendant driven a motor device without obtaining a motor driver’s license for a 49cc Obane in the 4km section from around the D farm dormitory located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Jeju to the farm located in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, to the farm located in Sinpo-si, Seopo-si, to the farm located in Sinpo-si.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt must be based on evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the prosecutor's proof does not reach such a level of conviction, even if there are suspicions of guilt, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

B. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, under the influence of alcohol, the defendant could not memory the situation of the day-to-day specified in the facts charged of this case, it is not a direct motor bicycle driving, but a traffic accident occurred after being accompanied by a motor device bicycle driven by workplace Dong E.

(c)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be acknowledged that the report was received by the Jeju Seopo Police Station around 18:01 on June 29, 201, on the fact that the police was sent to the place indicated in the facts charged, the police was written off, and the defendant was on the part of Ortopo, while he was suffering from her hair and face, the defendant could not have a drinking alcohol at the time, due to a large amount of skins and shock, and the defendant could not have a drinking alcohol reduced at around 19:48 on the same day with the consent of the defendant at the Seopopo Medical Center on the same day, the fact that the alcohol concentration of the defendant's blood was 0.215%, and the fact that the defendant did not have a driver's license.

(d)

However, the above facts alone are the fact that the defendant driven the motor device at the time.

arrow