2019 fixed-scale 162 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

A

Voluntary exchange, misappropriation and public trial.

B Law Firm C, Attorney C

June 5, 2019

The accused shall notify publicly the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant, who had been punished twice due to drunk driving, driven a HVS car in the state of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.072% from the 10-meter range from the Domo-gate in the city of Changwon-si to the Domo-si in the same Gu from January 10, 2019 to the F G G parking lot. Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the provision on the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more, driven a car under the influence of alcohol in violation of the said provision again.

2. Determination

In order to constitute “emergency evacuation” under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid present danger to one’s own or another’s legal interest. Here, “act of considerable reason”, the act of escape should be the only means to protect the legal interest in danger, and the second one must choose the method of causing the most minor damage to the victim. Third, the profit preserved by the act of escape should be superior to the profit infringed upon. Fourth, the act of escape must be an appropriate means in light of social ethics or the spirit of the entire legal order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9396, Apr. 13, 206). Considering the following circumstances recognized in this case, the defendant only moved to a parking lot located 5 meters right ahead of the road, and the intention to drive the vehicle is deemed not to have existed at the time, and the act of the defendant's own interest and safety as stated in the Criminal Act or the act of another person is more dangerous than the act of the defendant's own interest and safety.

① The Defendant: (a) sent an acting driver to return home while drinking; (b) the said acting driver brought about a dispute arising with the Defendant while driving; (c) while setting up a vehicle in front of the window of Changwon-si.

② The above stop location is two lanes on the two-lane road. The substitute driver did not attach the vehicle at the right end of the road, but did not show any degree of interference with the flow of the road (in comparison with the normal stop of the vehicle, the degree of interference with the flow of the road was higher than the normal stop of the vehicle). The above stop location is not lower than 20 meters from the I Tri-distance stop line.

As a result, the left-hand turn turn at a one-lane and the Defendant’s lane prevents the way of the right-hand vehicle (the vehicle of the Defendant is confirmed to go beyond the median line). If the Defendant’s vehicle continues to stop in the same location, it seems that the possibility of traffic accidents could not be ruled out without any substantial degree of interfering with the normal traffic flow of other vehicles.

③ The stopping location of the said vehicle is about five meters away from the point where the said vehicle enters the F Building parking lot. When there is no other vehicle in the surrounding area, the Defendant driven his own vehicle on a tent and parked the said vehicle into the F Building parking lot and parked the said vehicle. Thereafter, the Defendant was trying to return a taxi to and from the taxi, and the police officer dispatched after receiving a report was controlled as drinking driving.

(1) At the time, the Defendant did not have any string or driving, and it would have been practically difficult for the Defendant to request the driver to drive the said vehicle to the general public. If a substitute driver is appointed, the vehicle of the Defendant was under the situation in which the vehicle should continue for a considerable period of time in the above stop location.

3. Conclusion

The facts charged in the instant case are not a crime and thus acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of the accused pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act shall be publicly announced.

Judge Ho-ho,