beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2015.10.21 2015고단2343

도로교통법위반(음주운전)

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 6, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Incheon District Court Branch on April 6, 2015, and the summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime in the same court on August 28, 2015.

On September 9, 2015, around 01:54, the Defendant driven a DNA motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with approximately 50 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.067% from the 50m section to the 69th road in the Nowon-si, Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notice of the result of the control of drinking driving, and each statement of the report on the situation of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of each Act or subordinate statute of criminal records, reply reports, investigation reports, and reports on the same kind of records;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as follows):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, and Article 62-2 of the Act on the Order of Community Service and Order of Education, and Article 59 of the Act on the Probation, etc., are not well-known to have been punished for drinking driving twice, and the defendant committed the crime of this case again without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, which is disadvantageous to him or the defendant, seems to have divided his mistake, and the defendant has no past record