beta
Text
Defendant shall be sentenced to six months of imprisonment, and the execution shall be suspended for two years from the date the judgment becomes final and conclusive.
(b) the defendant;
Reasons
Criminal facts
On May 18, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Sungnam Branch of Suwon District Court, and on December 20, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court, and on October 24, 2014, was sentenced to a fine of KRW 7 million for the same crime at the Seoul East East District Court.
On May 25, 2019, at around 06:25, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle by re-afusing E in the state of alcohol concentration of about 0.060% from the 10km section from the roads near the C Hospital located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the front road in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D.
Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;
1. Photographs at the time of crackdown;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;
1. Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 16037);
1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;
1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as community service order, is not higher than 0.06%.
In addition, there is an error for each machine, and there is an individual car, and there is an individual car, so the actual importance is the degree of influence caused by drinking, but there is no other method to objectively grasp the degree of influence other than that measured by blood alcohol concentration, so it is generally to measure the illegal degree of a drunk driving by numerical value.
In addition, even though the police officer's unilaterally prepared and did not obtain confirmation from the defendant at the time of detection, evidence is not reinforced as other objective data such as video shooting.