logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.06.02 2016고정222
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 6, 2016, the Defendant driven a chip passenger vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of about 4 km from around 21:48 to around 283-23, which is moving from the front road of the same Do, to the Han-il apartment road in the same Do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of the offender and the primary driver;

1. Requests for the appraisal of alcohol, the ledger of blood collection, and the application of statutes governing alcohol during blood transfusion;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (2) 3 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of fines concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the order of provisional payment is that the defendant confessions the crime of this case and repents his mistake, which is favorable to the defendant.

However, the Defendant had been sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to drinking driving in the past. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant committed the instant crime while being sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year by imprisonment with prison labor at the Ulsan District Court for fraud and being sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years. In full view of both the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant argument, the Defendant did not recognize that the amount of fine specified in the summary order is excessive, and there is no change of circumstances that may be considered in sentencing after the summary order, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow