beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
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
On March 9, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's net support on March 9, 2009, and on June 28, 2016, the above court issued a summary order of KRW 2 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act.
On October 30, 2018, at around 00:42, the Defendant driven B Kent-ro car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.193% at a section of about 500 meters from the Do in front of a restaurant in the name of the municipal ordinance-dong, Seocheon-si to the front of the city of Mancheon-ro to the front of the city of Mancheon-ro.
As a result, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of drunk driving more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;
1. A written appraisal of blood alcohol;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: Inquiries and inquiries, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reports (referring to sound records and twice);
1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, 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 sentence identical to the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the criminal records of the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, the degree of blood alcohol concentration of the defendant at the time of driving of this case, driving distance of this case, the control details of the crime of this case, and whether the defendant reflects the defendant.
It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.