도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
On December 12, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch. On November 16, 2015, the above court issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving), and on March 14, 2016, the Gwangju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (dacting driving), respectively. < Amended by Act No. 1428, Mar. 14, 2016>
Although the Defendant had a driving force of drinking more than twice as above, on June 16, 2017, the Defendant driven a car with B, under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.066% in alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from the front side of the 12 Coru apartment, a 13-ro, a 13-lane 16-ro, south-ro, 16-ro, 25-ro, from the front side of the 2km-ro, to the front side of the 25-osan elementary school.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Notification of the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol, the ledger of driver's license, response to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of three copies of the summary order;
1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1), subparagraph 1 of Article 152, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;
1. In light of the circumstances where the Defendant committed the instant crime for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though all the criminal records of the Defendant, such as the Defendant’s order to attend a lecture, and the order to attend a lecture, and the order to provide community service order, but again committed the instant crime, there is considerable possibility of criticism. On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects it, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine due to the same crime, and there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine due to the same crime.