beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On July 30, 2007, the Defendant received a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Daejeon District Court on May 16, 2008, a fine of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime, etc. at the Daejeon District Court on May 16, 2008, and a fine of KRW 3 million for the same crime, etc. at the same court on April 10, 2009. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year for the same crime at the same court on May 18, 2012.
On June 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, and (b) driven B Poter II cargo under the influence of alcohol without obtaining a driver’s license at a section of about 5km from the front of a cafeteria in the mutual unfluent lux in the same agency to the front of the luxus Skiki, located in the same luxin lux, to the lux in the same lux.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;
1. A driver's license inquiry;
1. Records before judgment: Application of inquiry reports on criminal records, etc. and investigation reports (suspects' previous records and reports on confirmation of criminal facts);
1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of without a license) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;
1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;
1. The crime of this case was committed during the suspension period of execution due to the same kind of crime even though there was a record of punishment several times due to the reason of punishment under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14489, Apr. 2, 2009).
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.