logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노1443
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, while driving a vehicle by manipulating the vessel with a driver, was not able to drive as soon as possible and immediately after driving. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.

Article 2 subparagraph 19 of the Road Traffic Act provides that the term "driving" means the use of a vehicle on the road in accordance with its original use. The concept of "driving" refers to the use of the vehicle on the road according to its original use. Since the concept of "driving" includes a purpose element in light of the contents of the provision, it refers only to the act of driving, and in the case of driving a motor vehicle without any intention or involvement

Therefore, without any intention to allow any person to drive a motor vehicle, the motor vehicle was driven by the motor vehicle engine for another purpose, and the motor vehicle becomes driven by the power of driving the motor vehicle, such as the de facto wind, based on the power of driving the motor, it does not constitute the motor vehicle.

At the time of the instant case, it is doubtful whether the Defendant intentionally operated the flag of the instant vehicle in order to drive the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in light of the fact that the Dara slur’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) was moved to the nearest 3 meters of the instant vehicle at the time of the instant case, and that the flag of the said vehicle at the time appears to have been changed to the state of driving in the middle. In order to change the foregoing, it is doubtful whether the Defendant intentionally operated the flag of the instant vehicle in order to drive the vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

arrow