logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 의성지원 2019.09.10 2019고단216
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 28, 2004, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Daegu District Court’s Sung Branch Branch on the same day. On December 27, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a fine for the same crime in the same court, and on June 26, 2015, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for the same crime.

Although the Defendant had been in violation of the provision on prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol at least once, on July 23, 2019, at around 16:45, the Defendant driven the ECI 100G MIT under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.139% of alcohol level in the 1km section from the front of the Defendant’s residence in the Seongbuk-gun, G through C, to the front of the Ganbuk-gun, the Defendant driven the EIT 100G Orab.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on the actual condition and site photograph, report on the situation of a drinking driver, investigation report, and report on the request for appraisal;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, and criminal investigation reports (Attachment to criminal records and summary orders);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (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. It is particularly necessary to consider the defendant's reflective nature of sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act, the same kind of power (three times of fine), the degree of exploitation, and the distance of operation (one km).

arrow