도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor 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.
Criminal facts
On August 18, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 7,000,000 by the Seoul Southern District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On February 14, 2011, the Seoul Western District Court issued a summary order of KRW 5,00,000 by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).
As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.
The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.272%, without obtaining a driver’s license, was driving a rocketing car at approximately KRW 300 meters from the Raba-dong located in the Goyang-gu Preamdong in Goyang-gu, Mangsan-si on April 23, 2014, and around 23:59 on April 23, 2014, the Defendant driven a Raba-car at approximately 300 meters from the front of the department store.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Report on the results of the drinking driving control, and the driver's license ledger;
3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;
1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic
2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.
3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
4. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
5. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
6. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had the record of serving multiple punishments due to drunk driving and unlicensed driving in the past. In particular, if a risk of causing serious injury to human and material injury exists, it is an element for sentencing disadvantageous to the Defendant.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.
Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.