logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2020.08.11 2019고단226
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Since the defendant is led to confession, it is necessary to make an additional statement on the same part as the relevant supporting evidence in the same way as “(see, e.g., the page of the evidence record).”

Based on evidence, the prosecutor's facts charged are modified to the extent that it does not adversely affect the defendant's right of defense and actually affect the contents of the facts charged, and it does not result in the change of the subject of trial by the court.

The Defendant of “2019 Highest 261” (ththth 22:00 on January 21, 2019) is abbreviationd in the same manner as “2019 Highest 261” (hereinafter referred to as “261”) owned by the Victim C, which was parked with a key attached thereto at the first floor parking lot of Chuncheon City, Chuncheon (22:00).

(See Article 17 of the Evidence Records) Finding the victim’s surveillance, and cutting down the victim’s watch using the gaps.

"2019 Highest 226" [Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Driving without a license) and the Road Traffic Act (Violation of the Road Traffic Act)] Around 23:10 on January 21, 2019, the Defendant driven, without a motorcycle driver's license (see, e.g., evidence No. 226, 20) and without a license (see, e., evidence No. 226, e., evidence No. 226) of 0.209% of alcohol level (see, e.g., evidence No. 10, 226) on the right side of the Cheongcheon-si Burel parking lot in the direction of approximately 5km in the front of the Furst Docheon-si, Switzerland, the Defendant driven the DaTA 110cc Ora (see, e.,

[Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties] On September 30, 2019, around 17:32, 2019, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol in front of a house located in Chuncheon-si, G, with 112 report (see evidence No. 1953, e.g., evidence No. 1953), and was dispatched to that place and searched whether there was the said handcul, which is a damaged product, the Defendant called the Defendant’s cellular phone without any justifiable reason.

arrow