logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2012.10.19 2012고합214
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 19, 2006, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon branch of the Daegu District Court on September 19, 2006, and on June 20, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, etc. in the same court on October 28, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive, and

On August 6, 2012, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol with 0.095% of the blood alcohol concentration without a driver’s license on August 21, 2012, driven a C-A-Wurn-Wur-Wurl-Wurl-Wurl-Wurl-Wurg-Wurg-Wurg-Wurg-dong (hereinafter “Wurn-Wurg-Wurg-Wurg-Wur”), from the front of the “New

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the driver, the details of disposition on cancellation of the driver's license, the ledger of driver's license, and investigation report (the circumstantial report of the driver without license and the driver's license

1. Previous records: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (a copy of the judgment);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a violation of the Road Traffic Act of heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the current Road Traffic Act provides that a person who has violated the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more shall be punished more strictly in a case where he/she drives under the influence of alcohol again for the purpose of preventing the driving under the influence of alcohol that threatens the safety of road traffic and ensuring the awareness of such violation. The Defendant, on June 2012, even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same crime and was under the suspension of execution.

arrow