도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Criminal facts
On September 18, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) with a fine of KRW 1 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Goyang Branch Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on January 24, 2008, a fine of KRW 2 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) with a fine of KRW 2 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), and on July 21, 201, with the Goyang Branch Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on March 21, 201, respectively.
Although the Defendant had been subject to punishment twice or more for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant driven B truck in the section of about 300 meters from the Do in front of the “Cheongyang-gu Cheongyang-gu Dayang-gu 428, Goyang-gu Dayang-gu Dayang-gu Do, in the state of under the influence of alcohol content of 0.238% at around 19:40 on September 24, 2013.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. A written report from an employer;
3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, replys, and other statutes;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;
2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, where the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had a record of multiple times of punishment due to drinking driving in the past, and the risk of drinking driving, etc., the Defendant should be punished strictly.
However, it is considered that the sentencing factors are favorable to the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and divided wrong facts, and that there is a family member to support.
Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.