logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2017.05.26 2017고정9
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On December 2, 2016, around 20:50, the Defendant driven a G Spo-type car with approximately 1 km alcohol content of 0.050% in blood, while under the influence of alcohol content from the street in front of the D cafeteria located in C to the street in front of the same city E located in the same city.

2. Determination

(a) In a situation where it is impossible to determine whether the alcohol level at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol is the point at which alcohol level has risen during blood, the alcohol concentration among blood measured at the time when the driving was completed at a considerable time has exceeded the punishment threshold;

Even if the blood alcohol concentration at the actual driving time exceeds the standard level of punishment.

It shall not be readily concluded.

Although there are differences for each individual, the blood alcohol concentration between 30 minutes and 90 minutes after drinking, and thereafter, it is generally known that the blood alcohol concentration between 0.08% and 0.03% per hour (average 0.015%) are reduced by 0.08% per hour. If the driving is completed due to the increase in the blood alcohol concentration, the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving may be lower than the blood alcohol concentration at the time of actual measurement.

However, there is an interval between the driving point and the blood alcohol concentration measurement point, and at that time, the alcohol concentration in the blood seems to increase.

Even if such circumstance alone makes it impossible to prove that the alcohol concentration at the time of actual operation exceeds the standard value of punishment.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In such a case, the punishment level was higher than the standard level at the time of driving.

Whether it can be seen or not shall be determined reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances acknowledged by evidence, such as the distance between driving and measurement, the difference between the value of alcohol concentration and the standard value of punishment in measured blood, the continuous time and quantity of drinking, the driver’s behavior level at the time of control and measurement, and the situation of the accident if there is a traffic accident, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448, Oct. 1, 2013).

arrow