beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 16, 2004, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Southern District Court's support on July 16, 2004. On September 14, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act ( sound driving) in the Gwangju District Court's net support on September 14, 2007. On November 3, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act ( sound driving) from the Gwangju District Court's net support on November 3, 2009. On February 18, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 1 year.
Criminal facts
On March 8, 2012, at around 20:00, the Defendant driven C-hoer’s car under the influence of alcohol with approximately 200 meters alcohol concentration of about 0.123% from the 200-meter section to the ecological tunnel near the same Siro-dong.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on the results of the drinking driving control, and the statement on the state of drinking drivers;
1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal records, investigation reports (a summary order against a suspect, judgment of a suspect, revocation of suspension of execution and report on the reinstatement of right of appeal);
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 reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has a record of being subject to punishment four times due to drunk driving, and the defendant did not know even though he was in the period of suspension of execution due to the same kind of crime, and again committed the crime of drunk driving in this case. Upon the request of the detention warrant, the defendant escaped without attending the examination on the quality of the warrant.
As such, the defendant is sentenced to the punishment in order to sound the warning in the legal and timely attitude of the defendant.
However, it is judged that the defendant is against the defendant and the crime of this case.