도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On February 17, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 1.5 million won for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and a summary order of 5 million won for the same crime at the same court on February 8, 2013, respectively.
【Criminal Facts】
On November 16, 2013, around 00:23, 2013, the Defendant driving a Bschton car without obtaining a driver’s license from the Do in front of the French-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul to the road of approximately 4 km in approximately 37-97, Dong-dong, 337-97, and under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.063%.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement made under the circumstances of a drinking driver, and the results of crackdown on drinking driving;
1. Registers of driver's licenses;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to criminal records, investigation reports, and application of each summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Article applicable to criminal facts;
(a) point of drinking: Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;
(b) Unlicensed driving: Subparagraph 1 of Article 152 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;
1. Formal concurrence and selective punishment under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment shall be imposed as imprisonment with prison labor which is heavier than that of a violation of the Road Traffic Act);
1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation [General Considerations favorable to the defendant among "reasons for discretionary mitigation"]
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reasons for sentencing in Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Order to Attend the lecture have already been issued two times in 2012 and 2013 as stated in the judgment by the Defendant, and the fact that the driver’s license was revoked due to driving under influence of alcohol is disadvantageous to the Defendant, even though the driver’s license was revoked due to driving under the influence of alcohol.
However, there is no history of punishment imposed by the defendant more severe than a fine, and there are circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as reflecting his or her mistake in depth.