logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.06.18 2020고단1592
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 8,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 27, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the Gwangju District Court as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On March 26, 2020, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.098% of blood alcohol level around 23:38 on March 26, 2020, driven DNA car from around C in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju to the front of the regular course of business, from around 1.5 km to the front of the regular course of business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a summary order;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty for a crime;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., circumstances, etc. described in the following sentencing grounds):

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the defendant, even though he was punished as a drunk driving, has a high possibility of criticism and social risks.

However, in consideration of the fact that the drinking water of this case is relatively high compared to other cases, there is a little interval between the defendant's previous record of drinking and the date of the crime of this case, and the defendant has no record of punishment other than the above driving record, a fine shall be imposed.

The amount of the fine shall be determined as the order within the scope of the punishment after the discretionary mitigation is made in consideration of the above sentencing factors favorable to the defendant.

arrow