(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.04.06 2015고단4171

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2016.04.06 2015고단4171

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On July 21, 2015, the Defendant driven a poter cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with 0.145% alcohol concentration in blood from the E in the vicinity of E in Silung City D on July 21, 2015.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A place where drinking is output;

1. Detection site photographs;

1. The notification of the 112 Incident Report-Related Department (the defendant and his defense counsel asserts that the defendant has no driving.

The following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① the vehicle that was parked on the road at the time when the police officer F arrives at the scene of the crime, upon receiving a report that the person is diving in the vehicle, was parked on the road at the time when the police officer F arrives at the scene of the crime; ② the Defendant was seated in the driver’s seat of the above vehicle; ② the F prepared a statement of the circumstances of the driver’s situation according to the Defendant’s statement after taking a drinking measurement by shouldering the Defendant; ② the F prepared a statement of the driver’s standing according to the Defendant’s statement; and the details stated are very specific; and F made

In light of the fact that it seems difficult to see that there is no reason, and the defendant's statement that the substitute driver was driven by the driver at the scene of the crime as stated in the judgment, and 3) although the substitute driver was driving, there is no material to prove that the driver was driving by proxy, although there was no particular dispute between the defendant and the substitute driver, it is difficult to understand the defendant's statement that the substitute driver left the driver while driving on the road without any specific dispute, and it is difficult to accept it in light of the circumstance that the defendant did not have the above change at the time of drinking, it can be sufficiently recognized the fact that the defendant was driving by drinking, and therefore the defendant and the counsel's argument

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment for a crime shall be made.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2017.08.11 2017고단223

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.10.02 2018고정73

-전주지방법원 2017.07.18 2017고정339

-수원지방법원 2017.06.28 2016노7877

-전주지방법원 2017.06.20 2017고단601