logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2020.08.19 2020고단381
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] On May 31, 2016, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Seo-gu District Court's Seo-Support on May 31, 2016

【Criminal Facts】

On January 12, 2020, at around 01:45, the Defendant driven a F rocketing taxi under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.133% at the section of about 8km from the front of the road located in Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu to the front of the “E” restaurant located in Seo-gu, Daegu-gu.

As a result, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice in violation of the prohibition on drinking.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an employee’s driver) and internal investigation report;

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

1. Criminal records as indicated in the judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, and investigation reports (verification of sound records) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act was that the Defendant had already been punished once due to drinking driving, but again repeated the same offense.

Moreover, the possibility of criticism is greater in that the defendant, who is a taxi engineer, has driven a taxi while under the influence of alcohol.

At the time of the instant case, the blood alcohol level of the Defendant was very high to 0.13%, and the fact of drinking was discovered by the police officer called out after receiving a witness's report.

In light of these points, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant has been aware of the fact of crime, and that there is no record of punishment exceeding the fine, etc. are considered as favorable to the defendant.

arrow