도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two 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
[criminal power] On June 20, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Jung-gu District Court Goyang branch on June 20, 2007, and a summary order of KRW 1 million for the same crime in the same court on May 15, 2009.
【Criminal Facts】
On April 11, 2020, at around 19:18, the Defendant driven a D-hurd-hurged car with approximately 87 km alcohol concentration of about 0.107% in the section of about 87 km from the Hasung-si B apartment road to the Hasung-si road.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Report on circumstantial statements, investigation report (report on the circumstances of a drinking driver), notification on the results of the control of drinking driving, and investigation report (verification of suspect's statements);
1. Previous Records: A written inquiry about criminal records, etc. and summary order [the defendant denies part of the crime that the distance driven by the defendant without dispute about the distance driven by drinking is 63 km, but according to evidence, it is recognized that the distance between the starting point and the starting point and the starting point of the use driven by the defendant is 87 km]; the application of the law
1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime, Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Discretionary Mitigation and Mitigation Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on probation;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the fact that the Defendant had been punished twice due to drunk driving, as stated in its reasoning, and there is no motive or circumstance to consider the commission of the instant crime, and that the distance of drunk driving is a very long distance is disadvantageous to the Defendant.
On the other hand, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case as a substitute, and there is no other record of criminal punishment except for the previous conviction in the judgment of the defendant, and the last ten years have passed after being punished.