logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2015.03.18 2015고단42
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 1, 2009, the Defendant has been in violation of Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act on two or more occasions, including a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months in the same court on November 22, 2012 and a suspended sentence of two years in the same court.

On January 23, 2015, at around 11:30, the Defendant driven a 21 ton cargo vehicle while under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.386% alcohol concentration at the 1km section from the Do in front of the culture village to the road in front of the new interest village in the same Do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A written appraisal of blood alcohol or a report on detection of a drinking driver (Evidence No. 17 pages);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to criminal records and other references, investigation reports (reports on the previous convictions in the same case), summary order, and application of each of the Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to judgment;

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 reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation are as follows: (a) even though the Defendant had had a record of being punished for drunk driving, the Defendant again conducted the instant drinking driving again after one year has passed since the expiration of the period of probation, and (b) the police officer in charge of the control at the time of detection was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was aware of the fact that the police officer was unable to speak, and was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he was under the influence of alcohol, and the actual blood alcohol concentration was very high; and (c) even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant

arrow