도로교통법위반(음주운전)
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
On December 31, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 to a fine of KRW 500,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Cheongju District Court on December 31, 2008. On November 1, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 for the same crime.
(Criminal Facts of Crimes) On November 24, 2018, at around 00:43, the Defendant driven a D low-speed car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.112% at the section of approximately 500 meters from the Do in front of the restaurant located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon to the road located in C Bank located in B.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Report on the inspection of occurrence, control photographs, report on the situation of a drinking driver, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking, and report on internal investigation;
1. Registers of driver's licenses, and car4;
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of criminal records and investigation reports (Attachment of a summary order) Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act
1. The point at which the Defendant’s assertion of alcohol by the defense counsel ends is prior to 00:00 on November 24, 2018, and the point at which drinking was measured is at around 00:43 on November 24, 2018. As such, it cannot be determined whether the Defendant’s blood alcohol content at the time of the blood alcohol measurement with the Defendant’s blood toward the highest values (hereinafter “influence”) or whether there was a situation under which the Defendant’s blood alcohol content was raised toward the highest values, or whether there was a situation under which the Defendant’s blood content was lowered after reaching the highest values (hereinafter “influence”), and rather, there is a high possibility of a rise.
In this respect, it is not permissible to confirm the blood alcohol content by applying the Badmark formula to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant has no probative value.