logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.06.12 2020고단427
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal record] On May 4, 2012, the Defendant rendered a judgment of fine of three million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (Friju Driving) at the Jeju District Court (Friju Driving). On August 16, 2012, the same court rendered a judgment of one year of suspended execution to April of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime; on September 30, 2016, the same court issued a request for the revocation of suspended execution on May 8, 2017 at the Jeju District Court 2017 early 170, and the above court received a request from the prosecutor on May 23, 2017, but the Defendant filed an immediate appeal to the said court on June 9, 2017.

The decision to revoke the suspended sentence was finalized on June 16, 2017;

On December 16, 2016, the same court was sentenced to the two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

1. On November 30, 2019, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act by driving DMMGJET 124cc, which was not covered by mandatory insurance in the 20km section from the roads adjacent to the Seopo City B market at Seopo City to the roads adjacent to Jeju City, under the influence of alcohol 0.064% of the blood alcohol level without obtaining a driver’s license at least twice.

2. On November 30, 2019, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, driving DMGJET 124cc, and driving a three-distance intersection along which signals, etc. in Jeju City are installed at the same time, driving from the parallel to the west.

Since there is a long distance crossing where signal lights are installed, there was a duty of care to prevent accidents by driving a person engaged in driving a motor vehicle safely in accordance with the signals.

Nevertheless, the Defendant is under the influence of alcohol level of 0.064% with neglect.

arrow