logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.05.01 2015고단315
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] The Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on March 14, 2008, and was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won for the same crime in the same court on January 20, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

On January 11, 2015, around 23:18, the Defendant driven a golf car under the influence of alcohol of about 0.174% of alcohol alcohol level without obtaining a driver's license at a section of about 500 meters from the Do in order to the Do in the same Dong-dong, Mang-dong, Mang-dong, Sinsan-dong, Sinsan-si, and the Do in order to ensure the four-lane in front of the village in the Dong-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

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

1. A driver's license inquiry;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports on criminal records, previous records on dispositions, results of confirmation, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (attached to summary orders);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act heavier than that of a punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The sentence of punishment is inevitable in light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has a history of being punished by a majority as the past experience of the same or similar type of punishment, the fact that the sentence was in the period of suspended sentence due to the crime committed by a dual offender, and the fact that the punishment was committed by a person who was sentenced to a fine for drinking driving

However, the sentence was determined in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against and the decision of suspension of execution is highly likely to be revoked.

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

arrow