beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On June 3, 2002, the defendant was notified of a summary order of a fine of KRW 700,000 for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court's site. On June 16, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime in the same court on December 19, 2008, a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime. On October 12, 2009, the same court was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving). On January 31, 2012, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for 2 months with prison labor for the same violation of the Road Traffic Act and sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1,500,000 for the last violation of the Road Traffic Act on September 4, 2013 and sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1.3 million for the last violation of the Road Traffic Act.
On January 11, 2015, the Defendant violated the provision on the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more, and driven CK5 cars at the section of about 500 meters from the front day of the Futer apartment apartment in Pyeongtaek-si under the influence of alcohol level of 0.100% under the influence of alcohol level around 21:35, to the front day of the Futer apartment located in the same Dong.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;
1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (criminal records), summary orders and judgments, and the current status of confinement and confinement;
1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;
1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;
1. Taking into account all circumstances, such as the fact that a person was sentenced to punishment for the reason of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act due to discretionary mitigation and the fact that the person had been driving under the influence of alcohol again even after the execution of the punishment was completed;