beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal power] On July 19, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving on Motor Vehicle) at the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court.
【Criminal Facts】
On June 23, 2020, around 00:10, the Defendant, while driving a CMW X5 car in front of the CMW X5 car on the front of the CMW-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong (hereinafter referred to as “NM-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong
Nevertheless, the defendant did not comply with the police officer's measurement without any justifiable reason, such as avoiding entering the whole breath of a drinking measuring instrument.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A traffic accident report, an accident site photograph, an investigation report, and an circumstantial statement report of a drinking driver;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry reports and summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1), 44 (2) and (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for the sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the driving of an order to attend a lecture is highly likely to be subject to criticism because of the high risk of infringing the life and property of
Although the Defendant had past history of drinking driving, he refused a police officer's request for a drinking test following a drinking driving, and thus his criminal liability is minor.
However, it is reasonable to consider the fact that the defendant recognizes his crime in favor of him, and it is also possible to use the drinking water of this case, the distance of operation of the defendant, and the defendant.