2019 Highest 4884 Violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving)

E. A, 1967 N, South, and Japan

Residence

Reference domicile

Charge, Lee Jong-young, Lee Jong-young (Trial)

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon (Korean)

February 9, 2021

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Records】

The Defendant, at the Daegu District Court on June 8, 2009, received a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act; on March 25, 2014, issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime at the Ulsan District Court on March 25, 2014; and on May 16, 2017, the Defendant had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 10 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court.

【Criminal Facts】

On October 25, 2019, at around 12:40, the Defendant driven a 7.5 tons truck truck freight vehicle with approximately 300 km Korean specialty technology on the road near the restaurant where it is difficult to know the trade name near the building B located in the Ansan-si, Ansan-si to the D resting area located in the racing-si, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.30%.

Accordingly, the defendant violated Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 148-2 (1) and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

On October 24, 2019, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the charges are denied, since they driven a 300-km section from Ansan-si to the D resting area located in Sejong-si on a half-time basis, and then got a drinking test at the time before and after the 12 o'clock of the new wall 12 o'clock.

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged:

① On October 25, 2019, the Defendant supplied automobile parts, etc. to Ulsan by no later than October 8, 2019, as cargo truck articles employed by a branch owner, and on October 24, 2019, the preceding day, on October 24, 2019, all goods to be supplied to a truck that the Defendant attempted to drive.

② On October 25, 2019, when the Defendant did not enter the place of delivery until the scheduled time of delivery, the Defendant asked the location of the truck by telephone from the Defendant. On October 25, 2019, the Defendant provided explanation to the rolling stock owner by explaining that the rolling stock owner’s location of the rest area would be inconsistent with that of the rest area where the rolling stock used to run at the rest area. Accordingly, the rolling stock owner asked other truck articles to confirm the location of the truck.

③ Part of the articles showed a truck that Defendant was driven at the Eth quarter, and contact was made that Defendant’s truck was parked at the D resting area located in the racing-si.

④ As such, a local owner, who visited a rest area or reported to 112, was dispatched to a D resting area by the police, and the Defendant stated that the police officer called out was using approximately 300 km of a week at the Ansan-si restaurant to drink a small passenger’s disease and driving about 300 km of a D Rest, and the report on the circumstantial statement of the driver was prepared.

⑤ As a result of pulmonary measurement, the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration 0.28% has been 0.28% and the blood has been appraised and the blood has been found 0.308%.

In the above facts, the police investigation does not seem to have shown that the defendant, as argued by the counsel, has arrived at the D rest area, and in the written opinion submitted to the court of December 13, 2019, the reason why the defendant gets to drink and drink among the meals for drinking and drinking in the column of "the reason why the defendant gets to drink and drink within the vehicle", and did not fully state that he would drink after having arrived at the rest area of the rest area, it is determined that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol as stated in the facts charged. The defendant and the defense counsel's assertion cannot be accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

[Legal penalty: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years but not more than five years, or a fine not less than 10 million won but not more than 20 million won]

Although the defendant had been sentenced five times to a fine for the same kind of crime, such as four times a suspended sentence of imprisonment and one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment, the crime of this case is committed, and considering the fact that the blood alcohol concentration is high and the distance of driving is considerable, a sentence equivalent to the liability for the crime is inevitable. In addition, the punishment is determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing factors, such as the defendant's age, environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc. (However, the defendant does not have been able to attend the court on the first trial date in good faith and

Judges Kim Gin-Un