beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On June 22, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on June 22, 2010; on June 7, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on June 7, 2012; on March 26, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and 2 years as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court on March 26, 2013; and on November 13, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months and 3 years as a suspended sentence.
Although the Defendant had been punished twice or more for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, the Defendant driven Csch Rexton car in the section of about 100 meters in front of the ideas in the same Dong located in the Busan Sltri-dong, under the influence of alcohol level of 0.081% during the blood transfusion around February 2, 2018.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking;
1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history;
1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act include a variety of records of punishment for driving under drinking or non-licensed driving, and in particular, the defendant has committed the instant crime without being aware of the fact that the defendant committed the instant crime during the period of probation, even though he was subjected to a prior notice of the suspended sentence on two occasions, and the defendant was aware of the instant crime, and the defendant has committed a mistake in depth. The instant crime is not relatively high; the instant crime is a mere driving under the influence of alcohol, and there was no physical damage caused thereby, and the distance of the defendant's driving is relatively relatively relatively low.