logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.12.23 2015고정780
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On October 15, 2014, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.130% on blood alcohol level, the Defendant driven the BMW car at a section of approximately 300 meters from the bus stops adjacent to the bus stops at Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-dong, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, to the front of the same POW distance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Each statement of the report on the situation of a drinking driver, and that of the report on the control of drinking driving;

1. The 112 Report Processing Statement [the defendant and his defense counsel denied the fact of driving under the influence of this case, so the defendant and the defense counsel are aware of the fact of driving under the influence of this case, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the representative engineer who reported the driving under the police with the driver's driving under the influence of this case stated the defendant's vehicle number and point of departure accurately and reported the defendant's vehicle number and point of departure; ② as the defendant's assertion, if the defendant's substitute engineer and the substitute engineer are in the vicinity of the shooting distance, it is difficult to see that the representative engineer was "under the driving of the Geung High School," not "the shooting distance"; ③ Meanwhile, according to the police officer's statement by which the defendant was found during the patrol, the defendant responded to voluntary behavior and alcohol measurement without any objection; and considering the fact that the person's response who did not drive under the influence of this case, as argued by the defendant, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion in this case is without merit].

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts, and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow