도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Criminal facts
On December 8, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Western District Court”), on May 9, 2007, a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jungyang Branch District Court (hereinafter “Seoul Western District Court”), and on December 19, 2008, a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).
As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.
On April 6, 2014, at around 00:01, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.136% of blood alcohol concentration, and the Defendant driven B rocketing car at the section of about 2 km from the front of any restaurant located in the Priju-si, Priju-si to the front of the Dong-dong Underground Road located in the Priju-si.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;
3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;
2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage due to a large traffic accident, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant in terms of sentencing.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.
Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.