beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 November 26, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a fine of KRW 3 million as a same crime in the same court on October 11, 2013.
On January 24, 2014, the Defendant, as a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, driven a Brocketing-Pacific cargo vehicle without a motor vehicle driver’s license, under the influence of alcohol of approximately 0.120% from the 50-meter section of the 500m alcohol alcohol level to the front road of the Song-do Elementary School located in the Republic of Korea on the same day from the restaurant parking lot of the Songcheon-si unit in the Mancheon-si, Mancheon-do.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A report on the actual state of the driving of a motor vehicle and a driver's license inquiry;
1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes (Attachment to judgments of driving under the same kind for a suspect A);
1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The positive circumstances for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The positive circumstances for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant shows an attitude that the defendant misleads and reflects his wrong: The defendant again commits the instant crime even though he had been punished by a fine for the same kind of crime at least twice, considering that the defendant had committed the instant crime.