Defendant

Defendant

Lee Young-young

Attorney Ahn Byung-hee (Korean National Assembly)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2005 High Court Decision 228 Decided April 20, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of mistake

The Defendant, at around 19:30 on August 12, 2004, on the day of the instant crime, had a blood alcohol content by the pulmonary measuring instrument around 19:30 on August 12, 2004, but this did not result in a measurement conducted in water with the drafting, and thus, it was impossible to trust the blood alcohol measuring instrument of this case. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact, and thereby, convicted the Defendant.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of this case that "the defendant was a person who is engaged in driving of the Cheongsan-gun with a blood alcohol content of 0.056% at around August 12, 2004, after being under the influence of alcohol of 0.056% at around 0.056% of alcohol level, 3 kilometers from the Cheongcheon-gun's Cheongcheon-gun's Cheongcheon-gun's Cheongcheon-gun's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-do's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-si's Cheongcheon-do Dok

3. Judgment of party members

In light of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, 10% of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.3% of the number of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.3% of the number of alcohol remaining after 0.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 3.0% of the number of alcohol alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol alcohol remaining after 10% of the number of alcohol alcohol remaining after 10.0% of the number of alcohol remaining after 10.

The following circumstances are revealed in the above recognition facts. Control police officers stated that the defendant was not able to take separately, and that the defendant was not able to see the fact that the defendant was able to be able to be able to be able to be able to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to d to.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). This is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant pointing this out is with merit.

The facts charged of this case are as stated in the preceding 2.2. The defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof of the crime as seen earlier.

Judges Embryoon (Presiding Judge)