beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 11, 2001, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Government's branch of the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's order, and on June 21, 2002, for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Government's branch of the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's order, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months. On July 21, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On July 18, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) with a fine of KRW 200,000 for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Government's senior branch of the Seoul District Court's High Court's branch of the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's High Court's order of KRW 28.
At around 03:30 on March 28, 2015, the Defendant driven CMW car in the state of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.166% at a section of about 3km in front of the strengthen hospital, which was around the same 3km in front of the Gu’s dialogue-dong, from March 28, 2015.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Statement on the status of a drinking driver, and a written report on the status of a drinking driver;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as criminal records, inquiry reports, written judgments, etc.;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;
1. The reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant appears to have committed a crime; and (b) the fact that the Defendant committed a crime after the lapse of three years from the date of the immediately preceding detection (amended by May 16, 2012) is favorable to the Defendant.
However, as stated in the judgment, the defendant has been punished for drinking driving six times, and the one who has been sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment is also driving once again.