logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.10.20 2017고단515
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 1, 2017, around 01:45, the Defendant driven C C in the state of alcohol concentration of about 1m in the front parking lot of 107 Dong-dong apartment 107, which was under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.206% in blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Some statements made against the defendant during the police interrogation protocol;

1. A written statement;

1. The notice of the results of the influence on drinking and the statement on the circumstances of the driver at driving [the defendant and his defense counsel merely claimed that the defendant had a proxy engineer at the time and had no intention to drive the vehicle. However, Article 2 subparag. 26 of the Road Traffic Act provides that "the vehicle on the road (including places other than the road in case of Articles 44, 45, 54(1), 148 and 148-2)" means the vehicle on the road (including places other than the road in case of Articles 44, 45, 54(1), 148 and 148-2) used the vehicle in accordance with its original purpose and use (including operation). According to the evidence adopted and examined by the court, it is recognized that the defendant had been used to reduce the vehicle on the road at the time of this case from the parking space, and that the defendant had no intention to use the vehicle on behalf of the defendant in accordance with the original purpose and method of use.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and his defense counsel should not be accepted.

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The crime of this case is committed even though the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow