beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six 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 April 9, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 9, 201, a fine of two million won for the same crime at the Seoul Eastern District Court on October 28, 201, and a fine of seven million won or more for the same crime at the Suwon District Court on February 29, 2012.
At around 23:22 on September 10, 2014, the Defendant: (a) flown alcohol concentration of 0.166%, and (b) drive a motor vehicle B at a section of approximately 100 meters from the Do in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City to the roads in front of the Dong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
2. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;
3. Previous records of judgment: Criminal history records, repeated statements, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting criminal investigations;
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 crime of this case even though he had been punished for drinking driving three times in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage due to large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant in terms of sentencing.
On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized the facts charged in this case and supported the wife and young children 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.