beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-finding: In light of the fact that the non-guilty part of the judgment below is 2:31 on the day when the defendant's vehicle was parked in the vicinity of the crosswalk near the convenience point, and the witness K who was waiting for the signal in front of the crosswalk and the person on board the vehicle was making soup to the witness K, and then, the witness K's statement that he stopped again, and the representative M who driven the vehicle of the defendant completed the duty of driving on behalf of the defendant at around 21:47 on the day when the crime was committed, and the witness reported the fact of driving on behalf of the defendant at around 22:31 on the same day, it was found that M stopped stopped the vehicle of the defendant in front of the convenience point and completed the duty of driving on behalf of the defendant while the defendant could be recognized that the defendant was driving on the witness K in front of the crosswalk immediately before the convenience point, but the court below erred in the misapprehension of this part of the facts.
B. In a case where the lower court’s acquittal of unreasonable sentencing is found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (fine 1,000,000) is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is the E convenience store located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant convenience store”) around March 22 and 30, 2013.
(i) On the road, a person driving a motor vehicle is called the "motor vehicle of this case" which is called the "motor vehicle of this case" under the influence of while drinking alcohol, such as smelling from a slope F belonging to the Seoul Mapo Police Station I area of the Seoul Mapo Police Station, snicking on the face, snicking on the face, and walking on the string of alcohol, which is called the "motor vehicle of this case."
There is a reasonable ground to recognize that he/she was driving, so it was demanded to comply with the drinking test by inserting the whole in three times in a drinking measuring instrument for about 30 minutes.
Nevertheless, the defendant shall avoid this and demand a police officer to take a drinking test without any justifiable reason.