logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.08.17 2016고단666
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[2016 Highest 666]

1. On September 14, 2016, the Defendant driven three cargo vehicles with alcohol content 0.317% in the section of about 10km from the 10km to the front parking lot located in B, from the Do in front of the Do infri-si, Jin-si, Jin-si, Seoul, Jin-si, Seoul, to the previous parking lot located in B.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act is a holder of D-wing and three cargo vehicles.

The Defendant operated the foregoing cargo vehicle, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

[2016 Highest 832] On November 25, 2005, the Defendant received a summary order of a fine of two million won for the same crime from the Seoul Western District Court. On June 24, 2008, the same court received a summary order of a fine of three million won for the same crime. On October 13, 2016, the Daejeon District Court was not detained due to a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking), and is currently pending trial.

1. On September 15, 2016, the Defendant driven a D-wing and three cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.175% from the Do in front of the Siung-gu Distribution Commercial Building in Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, to the 1431-3rd road, in the direction of the 0.5km of the blood alcohol leveling from the Do in front of the Siung-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, to the 1431-3rd road.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

2. The Defendant in violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Compensation Act is a holder of D-wing and three cargo vehicles.

The Defendant operated the foregoing cargo vehicle, which was not covered by mandatory insurance at the time and place specified in paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of each owner driver, and inquiry into each mandatory insurance;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry statements, investigation reports (formers and attachment of written judgments), such as criminal history;

1. Driving under the relevant legal provision of alcohol for a crime: Article 148-2 (2) 1 of the Road Traffic Act;

arrow