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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
1. Around 19:40 on October 30, 2014, the Defendant driven a C rocketing car while under the influence of alcohol content of about 7 meters at a level of alcohol 0.210% in front of the “Snishing convenience store” located in the 112-3 Sinn-dong-Han-dong, Schan-dong.
2. No person who violates the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act shall operate any automobile on a road which is not covered by mandatory insurance;
Nevertheless, the Defendant operated the car that was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Written statements of D;
1. Application of the circumstantial report and mandatory insurance-related Acts and subordinate statutes to the brewing driver;
1. Relevant criminal facts: Article 148-2 (2) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving); Article 46 (2) 2, and the main sentence of Article 8 of the former Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 12987, Jan. 6, 2015); and the choice of imprisonment, respectively, with labor;
1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;
1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see the following reasons for sentencing):
1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see the following reasons for sentencing)
1. Judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act
1. The Defendant is not guilty of violating the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, since he is not a motor vehicle owner.
2. In light of the following: (a) the Defendant was unable to make persuasive statements on the process of driving the instant vehicle owned by another person; and (b) the Defendant appears to have made a statement to the effect that he would not make compensation to the other party’s driver at the time of the accident; and (c) the said assertion that the Defendant is not a motor vehicle owner is difficult to accept.
The reason for sentencing.