beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of a part of the facts charged against the Defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the testimony of the Defendant and the testimony of E that the Defendant’s vicarious driving engineer left the vehicle and that the Defendant was asked to leave the vehicle on behalf of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol due to the low credibility.
The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unfluent and unfair.
B. The lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) On August 23, 2018, the summary of the facts charged by the public prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) the Defendant driven a Cdisber vehicle from the fluoral land (hereinafter referred to as the “NV”) to the parking lot in the Hanam-si B apartment complex, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.141% under the influence of alcohol level around 01:00 on August 23, 2018.
(2) The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances as stated in its holding: (a) the defendant was found to have driven a motor vehicle in the apartment complex from the police investigation process to the court of the court below; (b) the defendant was aware that he was driving a motor vehicle in the apartment complex; (c) the defendant was stated to the effect that "the person was driving a motor vehicle within the apartment complex after being represented by a substitute driver"; (d) D, a police officer around that time, was found to have driven a motor vehicle on the ground that CCTV was confirmed and was not free from it; but (c) the defendant stated that he was driving a motor vehicle at the back of the motor vehicle at the time; (d) it cannot be confirmed whether the defendant was boarding the motor vehicle on the back of CCTV video (Evidence No. 1) but it cannot be concluded that there was no back of the defendant; and (d) in the court of the court of the court of the court below, the witness E provided the substitute driver with the assistant driver's won and the defendant's driver's d's vehicle.