logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.22 2012고합876
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 03:00 on April 25, 2012, the Defendant driven a Cniboo car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.103% from the street section on the street from before the Roman street in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul to the Olympic Road located in 258-1, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Seoul, for a 03:50 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A report on the actual state of the driver;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Control note;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site investigations);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (2) 2 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which choose the penalty for the crime;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant returned home after drinking alcohol, and that the Defendant left the road with a crepan in which the Defendant was able to drive under the influence of alcohol, and that the Defendant did not drive under the influence of alcohol.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted, since the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he/she has driven in a drunken state at the time and place in the judgment of the court.

(1) At the time of detection, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol in the driver’s seat, and the vehicle trial operation was turned on. If the substitute driver was driven as alleged by the defendant, the reason why the defendant was seated in the driver’s seat of the above vehicle shall not be explained.

In this regard, the defendant returned home to the police officer at the time of the police investigation, and locked in the vehicle.

arrow