logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.01.16 2013고단1745
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 11, 2005, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at a wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court, and was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court on October 1, 2007. On September 11, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to 5 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving) at the wooden Branch of the Gwangju District Court on February 23, 2010. On January 5, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to 400,000 won of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Free Driver’s License) and was sentenced to 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Free Driver’s License) at the Jeju District Court’s Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court on September 23, 2013 to 200, the previous 200-nan Eup fishing Village of the No.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Descriptions of a report on detection of a host driver;

1. Entry in the register of driver's licenses;

1. Entry into the mandatory insurance policy ledger;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes entered in criminal records;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Point of drinking under the judgment: Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) Point of driving without obtaining a license: Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

(c) Operation of a motor vehicle not covered by mandatory insurance: Articles 46 (2) and 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act;

1. It shall be so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the ordinary concurrence and the choice of punishment are above the punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (mutual crimes, punishment provided for a violation of the Road Traffic Act as stated in the largest sentence of punishment, and imprisonment choice) of the Criminal Act;

arrow