logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.07.03 2014노519
도로교통법위반(무면허운전)
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not only the past records of punishment for drinking, refusing to take a alcohol test, or without a license (4 times a fine and two times a suspended sentence of imprisonment), but also on January 17, 2012, the Busan District Court sentenced two years of a suspended sentence to imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act and a violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) at the Busan District Court on August 17, 2012, which became final and conclusive on June 21, 2013, which caused a traffic accident on October 10, 2013 and issued a summary order of KRW 3 million at the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court on October 10, 2013 by causing a traffic accident. In light of the above facts, it is unfair that the above traffic accident conducted without a license of this case for more than 40,000 won from the above traffic accident, and that the case is not somewhat weak.

2. Taking into account the circumstances alleged by the public prosecutor, the following facts are considered: (a) the Defendant confessions and reflects the Defendant; (b) the Defendant is in a position to support his/her mother and child; (c) the Defendant has been punished six times in total due to drunk driving or driving without a license; (d) two times in which the Defendant had been punished for a fine on October 10, 201; (c) the Defendant was punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Free Driver). However, this was committed on July 9, 201, which was committed on July 9, 201; (d) the Defendant did not commit a crime during the period of probation; (e) the Defendant did not repeat; (e) the effect of preventing recidivism can be expected through the probation sentenced by the court below; (e) other character, conduct and environment of the Defendant; (e) the background and consequence of the instant crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the prosecutor’s assertion as above is unjustifiable and unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.

arrow