logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2019.11.27 2019고단2427
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

On October 10, 2006, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Daejeon District Court's Branch of the Daejeon District Court on November 19, 2008, and 5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Daejeon District Court's Branch of the Incheon District Court.

On September 4, 2019, around 23:30 on September 4, 2019, the Defendant driven a D-hurd-hurd-hurged vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.159% in a section of approximately 300 meters from the Seo-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu to the front road of Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the statement of the state of drinking drivers, investigation report (report on the state of drinking drivers), and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (report on confirmation of criminal records against a suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act include the fact that the defendant was punished twice for the violation of the Road Traffic Act, but again drives the instant drinking, the fact that the blood alcohol concentration of the instant case is considerably high, the defendant recognized the crime and reflected against the order, etc., shall be determined as the same as the order, in consideration of the fact that the defendant was punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

arrow