logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2021.03.12 2020고단7893
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 11,000,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 11, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seoul Central District Court.

On November 6, 2020, the Defendant driven a car with approximately 5 km section in the name of the chemical market, attached a C temporary number plate in the name of the chemical market, from the vicinity of Suwon-si apartment to the road near Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the road front of the 588 Hawon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, under the influence of alcohol content 0.15% of alcohol during blood transfusion around 22:31.

Summary of Evidence

1. For the accused's legal statement, report on the circumstances of the driver who takes the driving of alcohol, the record of measurement of drinking, and previous conviction on the result of crackdown on driving of alcohol: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment to a summary order), and copy of the summary order around 13809, Seoul Central District Court;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2(1) and 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 17371 of Jun. 9, 2020) on criminal facts

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of the Provisional Payment Order is a serious crime that may harm not only his/her own but also an unspecified number of life and body, and since the Defendant, even though he/she had been punished by drinking, once he/she had been driving again, the nature of the crime is not weak.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the defendant seems to have driven the substitute driver on several occasions after receiving warning messages demanding parking restrictions and parking, and the drinking records of the defendant are about 10 years since the date of the crime of this case, and there are no other criminal records, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, sex behavior, environment, and conditions before and after the crime.

arrow