도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 October 4, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Road Traffic Act. On May 9, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for the following reasons: (a) the violation of the Road Traffic Act, (b) the violation of the Road Traffic Act, (c) the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and (d) the violation of the Act
Around 01:30 on June 27, 2014, while the Defendant was drunk with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.137%, the Defendant driven a DMF5 car at approximately 10km from the 652-1st road in Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, to the roads adjacent to the Gangnam-gu, Seoul.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. A written report from an employee of an employer;
1. A traffic accident report (1) and a traffic accident report (2);
1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry records, and 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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for probation and community service order shall be determined as the same as the order, in consideration of the fact that the defendant was sentenced one time to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to drunk driving and twice a fine, but the defendant was committed at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant was divided, and that he was not able to drive under the influence of alcohol again;