logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2014.07.01 2014고단241
도로교통법위반(음주운전)등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date of the final judgment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 20, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's net support on November 20, 2006, and on April 12, 2010, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On January 18, 2014, at around 14:10, the Defendant driven a B spoke-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-faf-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-h

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the control of drinking and driving, and the register of driver's licenses;

1. Previouss before ruling: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1, 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving), subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of without a license) and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Discretionary Reasons for Discretionary Mitigation);

1. The reasoning for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, community service, and order to attend a lecture, in consideration of the fact that the defendant had been punished several times for the same kind of crime, but he/she again commits the crime of this case, is erroneous, contrary to the fact that he/she has no record of crime exceeding the fine

arrow