logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2020.10.27 2020고정60
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of eight million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 27, 2014, the defendant had the record of being suspended from indictment for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the seat of the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office.

On March 5, 2020, at around 14:55, the Defendant driven a Fstren vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.051% of alcohol level from approximately 2.6km to the roads front of the said CY, via the Ethic bath in D, from the front of the CY, at around 14:55, the Defendant driven a Fstren vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling from approximately 2.6km to the roads front of the CY.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement, the notice of the results of the drinking driving control, the report on the circumstances of the drinking driver, the investigation report (the report on the circumstances of the drinking driver), the investigation report (the investigation related to the suspected crime, such as the suspect's statement), the investigation report (the blood alcohol concentration applicable to the immediately preceding driving of the suspect), and the investigation report (the confirmation in the body of the suspect

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Reporting on an investigation (verification of the history of driving a suspect), the progress of an investigation (verification of the history of suspension of indictment for driving a suspect), and the application of statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da15488, Apr. 21, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da11448, Apr. 1, 200; Supreme Court Decision 2008Da11448, Apr. 2, 200)

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow