logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 남원지원 2015.05.26 2015고정29
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 30, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Gwangju District Court, and on August 12, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million as the same crime from the Southern District Court branch of the Jeonju District Court.

On February 4, 2015, at around 13:50, the Defendant driven a B car with blood alcohol concentration of about 0.087% in the section of approximately 3km from the 3km to the road near the long-distance located in the same area from the Do near the amampiro.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry records, such as criminal records, and investigation reports (Attachment to previous records and written judgments, etc.);

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 for a crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( Taking into account the favorable conditions of sentencing among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of sentencing under Article 334(1) of the provisional payment order is not high in blood alcohol content of the defendant at the time of driving under the same case. Although the defendant had already been punished twice for the same kind of crime, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant that the crime of this case was not committed even after the last punishment was imposed in around 2008, the fact that the same crime was not committed until the crime of this case is committed, and the punishment is determined as ordered by taking into account all

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow