도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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
On September 19, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the official capital support of the Daejeon District Court on September 19, 2007, and on August 16, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000 as a crime of injury, intimidation, or violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).
Criminal facts
On August 7, 2015, at around 00:10, the Defendant driven B mati truck under the influence of alcohol level of about 0.253% from the 3km section to the 117 YT, which was located in the same city unit, from the front of the mati restaurant in Echeon-si, Sucheon-si.
Therefore, even though the Defendant violated the prohibition on drinking alcohol driving more than twice, the Defendant violated the prohibition on drinking alcohol driving.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A traffic accident report;
1. On-site photographs;
1. A report on detection of a host driver;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (verification of suspect drinking records), summary orders, and application of statutes governing judgment;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. In light of the fact that the Defendant, who had been able to commit the instant crime for the same kind of crime as the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, led to the instant crime, and that the blood alcohol concentration is high, it is necessary to impose a severe punishment.
However, the sentencing grounds prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act shall be decided as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant confessions and reflects the crime, and that there is no same record as the suspension of execution or more.