beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On January 23, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on March 27, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3 million as a fine for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) from the Seo-gu District Court’s branch on March 27, 2007, and on November 10, 2008, the Daegu District Court received a summary order of KRW 4 million as a fine for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking).
Although the Defendant was punished on two or more occasions as above, on September 26, 2017, the Defendant driven a B-hand car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.17% from the front of the bank located in Pyeongtaek-dong, Seogu, Daegu to the front of the bank in Seogu, Seogu, Seogu, Daegu to the front of the 222th Gyeong-gu, Seogu, Seogu to the front of the Gun Gyeong-gu Gyeong-dong, Daegu.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol;
1. Making teas;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (verification of the past punishment);
1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;
1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, so there is a need for strict punishment.
However, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake and criminal records, it is ordered as ordered.