도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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
On January 29, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Hongsung branch of the Daejeon District Court on January 29, 2007, and on May 3, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
On October 24, 2014, at around 20:14, the Defendant driven a BNS car with a blood alcohol content of about 0.231% under the influence of alcohol at approximately 5km from the front of the cafeteria at the entrance of Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun, to the front of the 919 king Seosung-gu, Hongsung-si, Hongsung-gun.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A written report from an employee of an employer;
1. On-site photographs;
1. Criminal records as stated: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports and investigation reports (Attachment of criminal records on driving under influence of a suspect) and statutes;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;
1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);
1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of the order to provide community service and attend lectures is a dangerous act that may inflict serious physical and human damage on not only the person himself/herself but also other persons, and the defendant already committed the crime of this case without being aware of the record of punishment for drinking driving multiple times despite the fact that he/she had already been punished.
At the time of driving, the blood alcohol concentration is very high to 0.231%, and the defendant was unable to completely memory the background of driving.
In light of this, since the nature and circumstances of the defendant's crime are inferior, it is necessary to make a strict punishment corresponding thereto.
On the other hand, however, the defendant seems to be against the confession of the crime of this case, and caused an accident during drinking.