logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2014.12.30 2014고정290
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant indicted the Defendant at around 00:20 on March 1, 2014, up to 779-12 of the same Ri from D in front of Pyeongtaek-si C, that “The Defendant driven a Franman-car under the influence of alcohol with approximately KRW 500 meters from approximately 779-12 of the same Ri 779-12 of the same Ri 779-12, via D in front of the same Ri 779-12,” but according to the evidence of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have driven an alcoholic beverage at around 00 to 0.160% of the blood alcohol concentration.” However, according to the evidence of this case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have driven from Pyeongtaek-si (779-12 page 779-12 of the right management of Pyeongtaek-si, Pyeongtaek-si) to have driven an additional alcoholic beverage at around 0.6% of the alcohol concentration of the Defendant.”

This constitutes a case where there is a little difference between the facts charged and the method of crime, and it cannot be deemed that it affects the defendant's right of defense, so it is recognized as above without changing the indictment.

approximately 500 meters of household volume was driven under the influence of alcohol 0.160% by blood alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Report on actions taken against an employer, report on the status of an employer-employed driver, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;

1. Inquiry into the enemy;

1. 112 Case mediation table;

1. Investigation report (Evidence records 43,44 pages);

1. Report on the results of investigation (Evidence No. 64 and 81 pages of the evidence record) (the defendant and his defense counsel) denied that the defendant did not drive a so-called so-called 0.160% alcohol since he d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

arrow