beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On October 19, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court, and on March 29, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2,00,000 for the same crime and was punished for drinking driving two times.
The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.206%, driven a Maz car on March 31, 2012 from the Maz-based distance located in 512 Sinsi-dong 53:20 Sinsi-dong on March 31, 2012.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Reports on traffic accidents, reports on the occurrence of traffic accidents, circumstantial reports on the drinking drivers, etc.;
1. Each photograph;
1. A previous conviction: An inquiry report, the ordinary records of disposition, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes reporting the results of confirmation;
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;
1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is deemed to have committed the crime of this case even though the defendant was sentenced not less than twice due to drunk driving, and again committed the crime of drinking again. The blood alcohol concentration level at the time of this case is high to 0.206%, and on March 29, 2012, the government district court issued a summary order of a fine of two million won due to the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Suwon District Court's order on February 16, 201, and again carried the crime of this case again after being sentenced to a summary order of two million won due to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury with deadly weapons, etc.) at the time of the instant sentence, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on February 24, 201 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the 24th of the same month, considering the purport of the revision of the Road Traffic Act.
However, the defendant's attitude to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.