logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2016.04.01 2015고단1663
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 2, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the Suwon District Court on February 2, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the same court on March 28, 2014.

On September 19, 2015, the Defendant driven B K7 vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.079% at a section of about 3 km in front of the road in front of the same Eup in front of the restaurant, in a section of approximately 3 km of the road in front of the restaurant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of driving at home;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The criminal liability is heavy in light of the fact that the defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection and Order to Attend, drives the instant vehicle in a drinking state, even though he/she had two times or more, once again had the power of punishment for driving the same kind of drinking.

However, the Defendant would recognize the facts charged of the instant case, reflect his mistake, and not repeat the instant case.

It is decided as ordered in consideration of various circumstances shown in the records, such as the fact that the defendant has been sentenced to a fine exceeding the fine, the fact that there is no record of punishment, and the age, sex, family environment, etc. of the defendant.

arrow