logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2019.10.24 2019고단1376
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 18, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Gwangju District Court's Netcheon Branch, and a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for the same crime in the same court on August 31, 2009, respectively.

On April 16, 2019, at around 18:27, the Defendant driven a F Car while under the influence of alcohol 0.101% in a section of about 200 meters from the front of C, which is located in D, to the front of E in D.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, has driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiries, a copy of each summary order, and the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018; Act No. 16037, Jun. 25, 2019); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The defendant's criminal records (the existence and frequency of the same kind of punishment power, time interval with the previous penal records, etc.); the degree of the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving of the instant case; the circumstances leading to the control of the instant crime; the defendant's reflectivity; health conditions; family relationship, etc.; and the various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of the instant case shall be determined as the same type of order

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow