beta
Text
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.
Reasons
Criminal facts
The defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) as a crime, for a fine of one million won in Ansan Branch on November 30, 201, and for a fine of two million won in Seoul Western District Court on June 12, 2009.
On April 30, 2014, at around 05:04, the Defendant driven B rocketing car at the 10km section of approximately 10km from the 51st Do of Sinung-dong, Seogyeongdo to the 51st Do of Sinung-dong, Hodong Highway to the roads before the Jeju Dondong Highway.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the state of driving under the influence of alcohol, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (A);
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter referred to as the following grounds for sentencing);
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Consideration for sentencing)
1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act is the case where the defendant drives a vehicle in drinking condition, and the defendant is not aware of the fact that he had been subject to punishment twice prior to drinking driving, and at the same time, commits the crime of this case without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case, it is against the defendant's mistake in depth as he recognizes the crime of this case, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is not high, and the defendant's blood alcohol concentration level is not high, and the punishment of this case is determined as ordered in consideration of favorable circumstances such as there is no means to punish the defendant in excess