beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 9, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months at the Seoul Central District Court for the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months on January 25, 2008 at the Seoul Southern District Court for the same crimes, etc.
On February 23, 2020: (a) around 22:18, the Defendant, at approximately 120 meters away from the apartment building in Nowon-gu, Seoul to the apartment building C, operated an EG80 car owned by the Plaintiff, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.114%.
Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.
Summary of Evidence
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inform the accused of the results of drinking driving control (Attachment to the judgment of the same kind of case);
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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. In light of Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., the defendant's prior conviction, 2000 and 2003, which had been sentenced to a fine due to drunk driving, which caused minor physical accidents during the crime. However, for the last ten years, there was no previous conviction except the previous conviction of a two-year fine, and the defendant was driving an acting driver, and the defendant was deemed to drive a short distance for parking, and the child support between the former wife and the minor was imposed, it seems that the sentence of the lowest sentence of imprisonment with prison labor imposed upon the defendant is too harsh.
Therefore, it is so ordered as per Disposition.