beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million at the Seoul Northern District Court on June 21, 201 to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions after being sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for the same crime at the Jung-gu District Court on June 15, 2012.
On June 17, 2015, at around 23:35, the Defendant driven a C Sti-type car with a blood alcohol content of 0.206% under the influence of alcohol at approximately 500 meters from the front road of “new apartment 101-dong,” located in the 795-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. A written report from an employee of an employer;
1. A report on the actual state of the driver;
1. Papers of measurement records of drinking alcohol;
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: The application of references to criminal records and investigation reports (report on previous records of disposition and results of confirmation) Acts and subordinate statutes;
1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Order to Attend shall be determined as per Disposition by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of the crime of this case, circumstances after the crime of this case, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, occupation and family relation, including the fact that the traffic accident occurred due to drinking driving of this case, the fact that the defendant has the same kind of criminal records as stated in its reasoning, and the fact that the defendant seems to have no criminal records other than the fine