beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months;
2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On September 14, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of one million won or more as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch of the Daegu District Court on September 14, 2007. On November 19, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime and for the suspension of execution for six months or two years.
On March 15, 2013, at least 00:18, the Defendant, who had driven two times or more, driven CNp motor vehicles in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 100 meters from a 100-meter radius to the front day of the packer box located in the same Dong and located in the same Dong, from the cNp motor vehicle in the direction of the police box located in the same Dong.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Requests for appraisal;
1. A brewing driver's license (19 pages of investigation records);
1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of references to criminal records and investigation reports (report attached to the same criminal records) Acts and subordinate statutes;
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 reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the punishment as stated in its reasoning, is not well-founded despite the criminal punishment imposed on five occasions due to drinking driving, etc. from 2002, and the punishment for the crime of this case again is not light. However, in light of the fact that there is no criminal record after 2009, and that there is no criminal record against the order, it is against the order.