도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 June 30, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 by the Ulsan District Court to a violation of the Road Traffic Act ( drinking), a fine of KRW 1 million on June 30, 201, and a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 for the same crime at the same court on October 28, 201, respectively.
On January 30, 2017, at around 23:45, the Defendant driven D's low-pollution car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.117% from a 500-meter section to the front road of the gas station in SK interest station located in 961, as the same Gu, from the front road in C Mart-gu, Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around 2017.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;
1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;
1. Selection of a sentence provided for in Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act regarding the facts constituting an offense subject to the relevant Act and subordinate statutes, such as a written reply to inquiries about criminal history, etc.;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55 subparag. 1 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Suspension of Execution under Article 55 subparag. 13 of the Act on the Punishment of Small Quantity Reduction and Punishment are the criminal records for which the defendant was punished twice by a fine due to drinking, and the defendant voluntarily reported 112 that "it may be allowed to be kidnapped" and the police officer was dispatched and controlled by the police officer. At that time, the police officer sent out and controlled the police officer by stating 112 of the Act on the Punishment of Minimum Quantity Reduction and Mitigation, and even during the investigation, the driver was driven in a drunken state to the extent that he/she was unable to properly memory his/her speech, etc., taking into account various circumstances, such as the defendant's age and occupation, living environment, and alcohol concentration during blood transfusion at the time of crackdown and driving distance, etc.