logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2012.12.06 2012노1538
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. In order to measure the blood alcohol concentration of the summary of the grounds for appeal, a nurse collected the blood of the defendant independently without a doctor’s instruction or supervision. This is an act that deviates from the scope of nurse’s duties and procedural defect in the collection of blood to the defendant, and thus, the appraisal request report and the report on detection of drinking drivers based on this request for appraisal as well as the report on detection of drinking drivers are not evidence collected as evidence.

Nevertheless, since the court below adopted the report on detection of the driver as evidence of blood alcohol concentration as evidence of guilt in the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act declares that “Any evidence collected without following the due process shall not be admitted as evidence.” In order to guarantee fundamental human rights, the Constitution declaring due process related to search, seizure, verification, and appraisal disposition and the basis of warrant requirement, followed by the Constitution that declared the substantial truth and the principle of protection of rights of individuals, and the normative power of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides specific standards for the procedures of search, seizure, verification, and appraisal in order to realize harmoniously the idea of the protection of rights of individuals, must be maintained firmly. As such, not only the evidence collected without following the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, but also the secondary evidence obtained based on such standards, shall not be admitted as evidence for conviction in principle, since it does not follow the legitimate

However, in finally determining whether to admit the admissibility of illegally collected seized articles, the purpose of the procedural clause, namely, the content and degree of the procedural violation, the specific course of the violation and the possibility of avoidance, and the nature of the right or legal interest to protect the procedural clause.

arrow