(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015고정1639

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) 서울서부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015고정1639

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 1, 2015, around 01:10, the Defendant driven Datoba while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.199% at a section of about 700 meters of alcohol from the 103rd roads of the apartment complex from the front road near Yongcheon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul to the Youngcheon-dong, Seoul, with the natural Dong located in the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. The circumstantial report of the driver at the main place, the circumstantial records of the driver at the main place and the manual for control;

1. Stobane photographs of the person under consideration;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the CCTV storage CD in the apartment house (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that at the time they had been driven only by being towed by the defendant, and that there was no fact of driving.

The following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence revealed by police officers E, i.e., “the person on the Obaba” is expected to have a wall in the state of “ON” when the police officer called upon 112 reports, and the defendant was out of the wall and was flab, and the defendant was flad in India while under the influence of alcohol. At the time, the police officer E did not go to the defendant by getting out of the Obaba market.

In light of the fact that the Defendant responded to “for example” (the witness E’s statement that the Defendant made as above was recorded in the process of hearing, the contents of the statement, and the fact that the situation was recorded in the CCTV storage CD in an apartment building, etc., it is admissible as evidence, as there is no room for false intervention that the Defendant made the statement, and there is no specific and external circumstance to ensure the credibility or voluntariness of the statement, and there is a specific and external circumstance to ensure the credibility or voluntariness of the statement). On the CCTV installed at the same entrance of the apartment at the same entrance of 103 unit, the CCTV, which is similar to the Defendant’s ones owned by the 103 unit of the apartment, has been driven, but the front of the 10th unit of the 10th unit of the 10th unit of the 103 unit of the 103 unit of the 100 unit of

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노1538

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2020.02.13 2019고단2144

-대전지방법원 2014.06.25 2014고정95

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.17 2017노1113

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2013.07.05 2013고단86