logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2018.07.13 2018고단277
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 31, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the wooden branch of the Gwangju District Court, and on September 18, 2012, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the wooden branch of the Gwangju District Court.

On March 22, 2018, the Defendant driven B-low-income motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol leveling of about 0.292% from approximately 700 meters from the 1st road 195-gil, Sinpo City, 250-ro, Sinpo City, 35-ro, Sinpo City, Do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Response to a request for appraisal;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: The application of a criminal history inquiry and a copy of a summary order under Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and community service order, has been convicted of a fine not exceeding three times due to the driving of drinking, but the accused has the intention of committing a crime, and the accused has not driven under the influence of drinking again;

The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the fact that the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc. is different.

arrow