beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 24, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million by the Changwon District Court due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On August 4, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million by the same court for the same crime, etc.
On November 30, 2014, the Defendant, as a driver of B windowatom car, driven the said car from the hotel underground parking lot of “Ask Quakua” in the Dong-si Kimhae-si, while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.186% at around 21:50 on November 30, 2014 to the front day of the model driver first in the same Dong.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on detection of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, circumstantial report on a drinking driver, and inquiry request for appraisal;
1. Before ruling: The application of criminal records and other Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty for a crime;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant has the record of being sentenced to a fine for the same crime as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is high, etc. are the reasons for sentencing unfavorable to the defendant.
However, a fine like the order shall be imposed in consideration of the sentencing conditions stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., by taking into account the fact that the defendant's mistake is divided and reflected, there is no particular criminal history except the records of the crime in the judgment, the defendant is currently attending