logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.11 2018고단6017
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on September 10, 206 (the issuance of a summary order of one million won at the Suwon Friwon on November 17, 2006), drives a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on July 13, 2012 (the suspension of execution on July 1, 2012 at the Suwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friwon Friend a suspension of execution on June), driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on March 7, 2013 (the suspension of execution on July 3, 201), and violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions.

On October 13, 2018, the Defendant driven B Mysta car, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.223% during blood transfusions, up to the roads front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, the Youngwon-si, the movie market, which is located in front of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Cysta car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Voluntary accompanying report, enforcement photographs;

1. A statement and appraisal report on the circumstances of the driver at the main place of business;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, summary order, and copy of judgment text, such as criminal history, etc.;

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 crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Act on the Reduction of Small Quantity, was committed by the defendant who had been engaged in driving not less than twice of alcohol, and the crime of this case was not less than twice, and the nature of the crime was less severe, and it was found that the defendant was exposed to the police officer who was engaged in patrol because the defendant was unable to drive normally. In light of the fact that the crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 55(1)3 and Article 55(1)3 of the Act on the Reduction of Quantity, the crime of this case was committed

In addition, the Defendant had been punished four times including imprisonment with prison labor due to drinking driving (one-time imprisonment, one-time suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor, one-time suspension of the execution of the sentence, and two-time fines), and the possibility of criticism is high in that the Defendant had been driving the instant drinking without being aware of the past.

However, the defendant is not a party.

arrow