logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.04.10 2018고단81
도로교통법위반(음주운전)
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Reasons

Criminal facts

On November 22, 2017, around 16:28, the Defendant driven a BF rocketing car in the state of alcohol alcohol content of about 0.158% at approximately 200 meters away from the 30-meter section of blood alcohol content to the road near the crosswalk in front of the Changwon-si, Changwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the statement of the circumstances of drivers working at the main place, investigation reports, and reports on detection of drivers working at the main place;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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 and Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Order to Attend, even though the Defendant had been punished by a fine three times since 2005 to 2013 due to drinking or refusing to measure drinking, the Defendant again driven the instant crime, namely, drinking.

Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment is inevitable because the defendant is no longer sentenced to a fine.

Therefore, the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the punishment to be imposed (six months to one year) on the crime in the judgment, and the decision shall be made by taking into account the fact that the defendant led to the crime in the instant case, that the defendant has no criminal record of being sentenced to the suspension of qualification for the same crime, that the defendant was the victim of the traffic accident that was discovered, not the perpetrator of the traffic accident.

arrow