beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2016.12.21 2016고단1810

도로교통법위반(음주운전)등

Text

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

2.Provided, That the above sentence shall be executed for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 8, 2015, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 5 million to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the branch court of the Busan District Court and the Dong branch court of the Busan District Court on January 24, 2013. On April 27, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 70,000 for a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Busan District Court and the Dong branch court of the Busan District Court on April 27, 2007.

2. Crimes by defendants;

A. Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Liju and Unlicensed Driving) is a person driving EM3 passenger cars.

On August 9, 2016, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.120% without a driver’s license, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.120%. The Defendant driven the motor vehicle again under the influence of alcohol by a person who drives the motor vehicle on at least two occasions at the 1km section of the same 1km from the road before a swine boomba located in the Busan Shipping Daegu Zone to the 1st apartment road located in the same Dong.

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death or Injury caused by Dangerous Driving) is about 2:00 on August 9, 2016.

In the state of alcohol with 0.120% alcohol concentration as stated in the paragraph, the driver driven the above passenger vehicle at a speed of 0.120%, and tried to drive the front way of the 1st apartment in the 1st apartment in Busan Metropolitan Transportation Daegu at a speed of 1-lane from the brush distance to the fluence of the large distance.

At the same time, there were two crossings, and vehicles are under the stop at the front of the vehicle in accordance with the signals, so there was a duty of care to refrain from driving a vehicle in a situation where normal driving is difficult due to influence of drinking, as well as from driving a vehicle in a situation where the driver of the vehicle is under the duty of care to accurately manipulate the steering and steering devices and not to see the front of the signal waiting vehicle.

Nevertheless, the defendant was unable to fulfill the above duty of care under the influence of drinking.