도로교통법위반(음주운전)
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the Changwon District Court 2012No26 decided February 21, 2012 on the summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant was punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free license) and that the defendant was not punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (free license). However, the judgment of the court below was rendered under the unfavorable circumstances against the defendant. The defendant did not attend the marriage ceremony due to detention, the defendant was led to confession and reflect, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was relatively lower than 0.053%, and the blood alcohol concentration of the defendant was relatively lower than 0.053%. In light of the above, the sentence of the court below (six months of imprisonment) is unfair.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and this court, at around 00:55 on October 26, 201, the Defendant driven a BM520 car under the influence of alcohol content 0.114% without a driver’s license, but was sentenced to four months imprisonment with prison labor for the court as of December 16, 201, under the influence of alcohol content 0.114%, and the Defendant filed an appeal against the above judgment and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million on February 21, 2012. The lower judgment was reversed by the lower court as of February 21, 2012, and the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 200,000,000. The Defendant did not file an appeal and thus, can sufficiently be fully recognized on February 29, 2012.
B. Taking into account the remaining circumstances alleged by the Defendant, the instant crime is deemed to drive a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol of 0.053% even though the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol twice or more, and the case is not less than that of the said case. The drinking driving is a crime that may threaten another person’s life and body as well as himself/herself, and requires a strict punishment in accordance with the purport of the amended Road Traffic Act. In particular, in the past, the Defendant has been punished several times (one-time suspension of execution of imprisonment and four-time fines) due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (i.e., a violation of the Road Traffic Act), a violation of the Road Traffic Act (ii) and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (iii).