beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.10.12 2017고단4085

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

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.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] The defendant is a person who has been punished for drinking driving two times or more by a fine not exceeding one million won due to a violation of road traffic laws in the Seo-gu District Court's branch branch on January 19, 2009, and a fine not exceeding 4.5 million won due to a violation of road traffic laws (driving) in the same court on April 9, 2014.

[2] On July 6, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.105% in blood around 22:40%, driven a vehicle B with approximately 400 meters away from around 1485 U.S. to the road front of the 1485 U.S. in front of the same Eup/Myeon in front of the same cafeteria.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, investigation report, and summary order-making statute, such as criminal history;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense (or choice of imprisonment);

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. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the frequency and time when the defendant was punished for the same kind of crime, the concentration of alcohol in blood at the time of driving the drinking of this case, the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., as stated in the arguments of this case, shall be determined as ordered by considering the various factors for sentencing as stated in the argument of this case.