도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
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 July 29, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million to the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On November 20, 2012, a summary order of KRW 3 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On August 9, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 6 million to the same court on August 9, 2013, respectively.
【Criminal Facts】
On January 19, 2014, the Defendant, without obtaining the driver’s license at around 09:50, driven B-wing cars from the section of about 5 km to the front side of the Mympia Center of 410 Mym Mym-ro, Seosan-si, in the state of alcohol concentration of 0.081%.
As a result, the Defendant violated it more than twice even though he was unable to drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, and again drive the said cargo under the influence of alcohol.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the results of the drinking driving control, and a driver's license inquiry;
1. Previous records of judgment: Application of three copies of criminal records, inquiry reports, summary orders, etc.;
1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for community service and lecture attendance order reflects the instant crime, and it is recognized that the blood alcohol content was not high at the time of the instant case, but the Defendant committed again the instant crime even though he had been sentenced to a three-time fine due to drinking driving from 2010 to 2013, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records and arguments of the instant case.