logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.05.08 2019고단4564
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 26, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court.

On November 2, 2019, at around 07:20, the Defendant driven a dial motor vehicle with D's blood alcohol concentration of about 0.113% in the section of about 3km from the front of Ulsan-gu B to the front of Ulsan-gu C, Ulsan-gu.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking-driving and the circumstantial statement of the drinking-driving driver;

1. References to criminal records and other reference reports and the application of statutes for investigation reports (verification of records of sound driving);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the choice of fines for criminal facts;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 6 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the Defendant again committed the crime of drunk driving even though he had the record of punishment for the previous drunk driving, in view of the social harm and danger of the drunk driving, the nature of the crime of the original drunk driving in light of the social harm and danger of the drunk driving, the possibility of criticism is not somewhat weak, the distance of the drunk driving is long, and the blood alcohol concentration level is high, etc. disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized his crime and divided his mistake in depth, the defendant was found to have been found to have been under the influence of the motor vehicle after drinking the previous drinking, and there are some circumstances to take into account the process of the crime. This case was committed after a considerable period of time from the time of the crime of the previous drinking driving, there is no other punishment force except the fine punished for the previous drinking driving, and the defendant was also under the influence of drinking driving.

arrow