도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On August 10, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daegu District Court. On April 2, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seo branch court of the Daegu District Court. On April 22, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 5 million for a period of four months due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seo branch court of the Daegu District Court. On May 15, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the same court.
【Criminal Facts】
[2019 Highest 298] The Defendant: (a) was a person with the power of violating the duty of prohibition on driving under the influence of alcohol as above, and (b) was driving D Poter cargo under the influence of alcohol at approximately 0.171% of blood alcohol level from the 1km section from the front of Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, Seoul to the front road, around September 5, 2019.
The Defendant stated 112 on October 6, 2019 that “the Defendant was a person who had been under the influence of alcohol and who violated the duty of prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol,” the Defendant stated 112 on the front side of Gohap-gun, Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeongcheon-gun, the Defendant 112 reported that “the Defendant was drinking, hinginging, hinginging, and hinginginginginging,” and stated that “the Defendant hinging, hinging, hinginginging, hinginging, and parked at the face of the Defendant,” while the Defendant appears to have been driving under the influence of alcohol at around 16:56, around 17:01, around 17:07, around 17:06 on the same day, the Defendant stated “17:06 on the charge of drinking alcohol control,” but in light of the results of the on-site report on investigation records (13:19).
A request was made to comply with a drinking test by inserting the whole breath of a drinking measuring instrument three times.
Nevertheless, the defendant is guilty.