logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2014.08.27 2014고단2151
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by ten months of imprisonment.

However, the above sentence shall be executed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 28, 2008, the Defendant, at the Gwangju District Court, issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and at the same court on April 6, 2012, issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime, and was punished twice or more for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by being notified of the summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant, at around 23:32 on May 15, 2014, driven a vehicle with approximately approximately KRW 500 meters of blood alcohol level from the date on which the house was located in Suwondong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-car without a driver’s license.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Entry in the register of driver's licenses;

1. Statement of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes written in an investigative report (Attachment of a summary order for the same kind of crime);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Point of drinking under the judgment: Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act;

(b) Point of driving without obtaining a license: Article 152 subparagraph 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Formal concurrence and the choice of a punishment under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for a violation of the Road Traffic Act with heavier punishment, and the choice of imprisonment);

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do354, Apr. 1,

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (including the absence of any record of punishment for imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment);

arrow