beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 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
Criminal facts
On January 15, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million from the Incheon District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on September 29, 201, a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act was issued from the Jung-gu District Court's Goyang Branch on September 29, 201.
As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.
At around 03:20 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.26%, and around 03:20 on May 2, 2014, the Defendant driven B CCBV car at the section of approximately 50 meters in front of the CCV car, which is located at about 260 Donyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyangyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. A written report from an employer;
3. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and investigation report-related Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;
2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been punished twice in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage by causing large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.
Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.