logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016노3626
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misunderstanding of the repulmonary measurement conducted after about nine minutes from the time when the Defendant was driving, that the alcohol concentration in the blood was measured 0.051%. Since the passage time from the first and the last drinking time to the end of the driving respectively falls within ninety minutes, considering that the Defendant’s blood concentration in the blood was risen, the alcohol concentration in the blood at the time of driving was the same.

It is difficult to readily conclude.

In addition, if the alcohol level in one blood exceeds the punishment level, it is necessary to judge more strictly whether the defendant is subject to criminal punishment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty that he driven a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol between 0.05% and 0.075% as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On April 28, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won at the Seoul Central District Court on April 28, 2008, and a fine of three million won at the Seoul Northern District Court on May 23, 2011.

On February 5, 2016, while under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.075% during the blood transfusion around 23:23, the Defendant driven a C body-man car at the section of about 300 meters from the 185 KCC pak to the front road of the same Gu from the parking lot in Jung-gu, Seoul.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant was found to have driven a vehicle while under influence of alcohol between 0.050% and 0.075% (as indicated in the facts charged, the Defendant’s alcohol density is 0.075%).

arrow