logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2015.11.06 2015고단1070
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding seven million won.

Where the above fine is not paid, one million won shall be converted into one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 31, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of four million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-do branch of the Daegu District Court, and on May 8, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months and two years for the same crime in the same court.

On July 21, 2015, at around 23:15, the Defendant driven B Poter Cargo Vehicles with blood alcohol content of about 0.059% at a section of about 300 meters from the front road of the Kumpung-dong Suwon-dong, Seoul, to the next road of the food materials horse under the same level.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under consideration, and the statement on the state of standing of the motor vehicle under consideration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, etc. inquiry reports and investigation reports (a report on confirmation of the same criminal records);

1. The punishment should be sentenced in light of the pertinent legal provisions on criminal facts, Article 148-2(1)1 of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of fines (limited to three times the punishment force for suspended execution due to traffic crimes, and one half year after receiving the final suspended execution judgment in the holding, which led to the dismissal of an appeal in the appellate court after being sentenced to a suspended execution of the final judgment. However, there is no accident that has caused the dismissal of an appeal in the appellate court, but the degree of the punishment has not been much severe, the fact that the person seems to have been aware of one story while undergoing the warrant questioning, and that the disposition of the vehicle and the decision not to repeat the crime have been made, and the fact that the person shows a character that is against the depth).

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

arrow