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 a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[criminal history] On December 29, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of road traffic law at the Seoul Southern District Court (dacting driving), a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime from the high support on October 19, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime from the Suwon District Court on December 2, 2015, respectively.
[2] On April 21, 2017, the Defendant driven a B-A-A6 car from around 600 meters to the front road of the 172 U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. A report on the circumstances of driving at home and a report on the circumstances of the driver at home;
1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;
1. The driver's license ledger;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports;
1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense; Article 152 subparagraph 1 and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed Driving)
1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishment provided for in a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act with heavier punishment);
1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;
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 Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, committed a so-called “dacting and driving without a license,” while the license was revoked due to driving under the influence of alcohol.
The amount of alcohol concentration measured at the time of detection is not lower than the amount of alcohol concentration, and the act of taking an employee under his/her responsibility or an employee on the vehicle driving a worker under his/her responsibility is not the person responsible for the act, and there was an inevitable circumstance in which the defendant was making a drinking or a non-licensed driver.
It is also difficult to see it.
Imprisonment with prison labor to prevent the second offense.