beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Around 02:30 on January 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) driven a C car at a section of approximately 5km near the Daejeon Seo-dong Jung-dong Hadong, Daejeon Middle-gu, Daejeon Middle-dong, to the road crossing nearby the Daejeon Middle-dong, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.128%; and (b) around 02:30 on January 9, 2013.
2. The Defendant asserts that he/she did not drive a motor vehicle consistently from the on-site detection to this Court.
The defendant's statement was made in D's investigative agency as evidence corresponding to the facts charged that he was driving. The contents of the statement are that "the defendant's vehicle was driven by the defendant's vehicle and parked in the speed of 20 meters prior to the 20m prior to the launch, the vehicle following the vehicle showed that it was damaged by the rapid tracing and then the driver was able to take the trac, and near the driver was able to take the trac, and the driver was able to take the tracing and diving off the vehicle. If the accident was erroneous, the report was made in the same mind as the accident occurred."
However, D made an appearance in this court as a witness, stating to the effect that “as 100 meters prior to 100 meters prior to the front of the road, the Defendant’s vehicle was in parallel and 5-6 vehicles were able to run in the vicinity. The Defendant’s vehicle was not directly seen as driving. Since the vehicle was undergoing and entebracated, it is difficult to find whether the vexrac sound was faced with the Defendant’s vehicle. Although it was seen that the Defendant’s vehicle was vexracing, it would not be possible to say that the Defendant was driving even without driving, and even if it was possible to proceed with the bracing, it was impossible to say that the Defendant was able to say that the Defendant was driving,” and as to the prosecutor’s inquiry about the contents of the statement made in an investigative agency, it was reasonable to see the Defendant’s vehicle as opposed to the Defendant’s vehicle.