도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
except that 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
[criminal power] On April 25, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000,000 by the Seoul Southern District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and KRW 3 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.
【Criminal Facts】
On April 9, 2014, at around 00:30, the Defendant driven a Grand City car from approximately 50 meters away from the roads front of the trade name in Pyeongtaek-si Seo-dong to the roads front of the Western Station located in the same Dong, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.069% of blood alcohol concentration.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the situation of driving under the influence of alcohol, statement on the status of driving under the influence of alcohol, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking under the influence of alcohol;
1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment of judgment), and application of two copies of judgment-making Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspension of execution is that the defendant had a record of having been punished twice due to drunk driving, etc., but again commits the same crime despite the fact that he/she had four times the same criminal records, etc., the punishment for such crime is not somewhat weak.
However, the suspension of execution is to be ordered as ordered by considering various sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family environment, and criminal records, including the fact that the defendant is recognized as committing a crime and is contrary to the fact that the defendant does not repeat the crime, and the drinking water is not relatively high.