beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.12.21 2017고단3350

도로교통법위반(음주운전)등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won for a violation of road traffic law in the Seo-gu District Court's Seo-Support on March 7, 2008, and a fine of 1.5 million won for the same crime on July 15, 2009, and two years of suspension of execution on July 24, 2014 for the same crime in the Daegu District Court's Seo-gu District Court's Seo-gu District Court's Seo-gu District Court's 200 million won for a violation of road traffic law. On November 23, 2017, the Defendant filed an appeal for ten months for the same crime, and is still pending in the appellate trial on the following day.

[2] On March 3, 2017, the Defendant driven a cub 300-car without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol leveling about 0.110% in a section of approximately 3 km from the 19:50 square of the Mapo-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and then driving a cub 300-car at C New without a driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. The driver's license ledger;

1. Previous convictions: Inquiry into criminal history, investigation reports (verification of the same criminal suspect's records and reports during the appellate trial), and application of the summary order attached thereto, copies of written judgments, and the application of statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. It is recognized that the defendant's mistake in sentencing reasons under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of small amount is recognized.

However, the Defendant had a large number of criminal records, did not comply with the demand of an investigative agency for appearance, and committed the instant crime while the Defendant did not appear in the trial after he was prosecuted for committing the 2016 Highest 4650 Incident.