logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2020고단3890
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

[criminal history] On March 18, 2015, the Defendant was ordered to take a summary order of a fine of five million won for a crime of violating road traffic laws (e.g., refusal to measure drinking) at the Ulsan District Court.

[Criminal facts] On May 16, 2020, the Defendant driven Ep-car in the state of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.167% while under the influence of alcohol level 0.167% at the 1km section from the nearby C Hospital located in Ansan-si, Seoul-si to the front day of the same Gu from May 16, 2020.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking alcohol driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement under the circumstances of the driver's license, including the defendant's legal statement and record paper;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and the Acts and subordinate statutes attaching a summary order;

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

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture, despite the past record of punishment for refusal of drinking alcohol measurement, repeating a crime, the blood alcohol concentration is high, no attitude at all against the time of detection is shown at the time of detection, and the fact that an investigation agency fails to comply with the request to attend a trial after the fact is disadvantageous, considering the circumstances favorable to recognizing a mistake and reflecting it in the court.

arrow