도로교통법위반(무면허운전)등
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.
Punishment of the crime
On June 23, 2013, at around 21:45, the Defendant driven a C-Indurged vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.074% under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license from the 1km section from the 13-14th head of the eroscopic magic magic magscopic mastic mastic mastic mastic mastic mastic mastic
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of witness D;
1. Partial statement of witness E;
1. A protocol of examination of part of the defendant by prosecution;
1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;
1. Application of the statutes on the register of driver's licenses;
1. Relevant Article 152 subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 148-2 (2) 3 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts of crime;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that he driven by E at the time when he was the wife of the defendant and stated that E was also a witness and driving.
However, according to the evidence as seen above, in reporting the stopping of the vehicle at the time, and consistently states that the defendant's intention to regulate the soburging from the driver's seat was found, and that the defendant and E tryed to stop the vehicle on the idea that drinking control might be conducted, and to examine whether the defendant and E stop the vehicle at the front, but the defendant stated that the crackdown was not considered at the front time, and that the defendant did not look at the front time immediately after getting on the vehicle. At the time of the crackdown's demand for a soburging test, E, the defendant's wife, at the time of the request for a first drinking test, was driven by the assistant and actively driven by himself.