beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Criminal facts
On October 30, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court on October 30, 2007, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on September 28, 2012.
As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.
The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.118%, and around May 17, 2014 from the Do near the Do near the Do in the city of Kuyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu to the road front of the Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Goyang-gu, the Defendant driven a Dhurd-lurd vehicle at approximately 20km from May 17, 2014.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;
3. Before ruling: References to criminal records and the application of statutes;
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;
2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished for drinking driving several times in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage by causing large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.
Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.