[Reduction of sentence case study for drunk driving punishment] A suspended sentence was pronounced with Daeryun's assistance for a reduction of sentence in a drunk driving punishment

The client who came to Daeryun regarding mitigation of a drunk driving (DUI) penalty was a man in his sixties facing a lawsuit for violation of the Road Traffic Act arising from his second instance of drunk driving.

About ten years earlier, the client had been sentenced to a fine for drunk driving, and he had since abstained from alcohol.

However, when his mother's illness worsened and discord arose within his family, the client, feeling distressed, drank to excess.

After drinking heavily, the client took the wheel and went in person to a police station to talk about his situation, where his drunk driving was discovered.

The client therefore came to Daeryun's drunk driving attorney seeking mitigation of the penalty for his second instance of drunk driving.

■ Statutes Related to the Drunk Driving (DUI) Penalty

◎ Road Traffic Act

▶ Article 44 (Prohibition of Driving While Intoxicated)
(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle, etc., a tram, or a bicycle while in a state of intoxication.

(2) A police officer may, where deemed necessary for the safety of traffic and the prevention of danger, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has driven a motor vehicle, etc., a tram, or a bicycle while in a state of intoxication in violation of paragraph (1), measure whether the driver is intoxicated by a breath test. In such case, the driver shall comply with the police officer's measurement.

(3) A driver who objects to the result of the measurement under paragraph (2) may, with that driver's consent, be tested again by a method such as the collection of a blood sample.

(4) The standard for the state of intoxication that prohibits driving under paragraph (1) shall be a blood alcohol concentration of 0.03 percent or more.

(5) Matters necessary for the methods and procedures of the measurement under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of the Interior and Safety.

▶ Article 148-2 (Penalty Provisions)
(1) A person who, within ten years from the date on which a sentence of a fine or heavier punishment for a violation of Article 44 (1) or (2) became final, again violates paragraph (1) or (2) of the same Article shall be punished as classified in the following subparagraphs:

1. A person who violates Article 44 (2) shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than six years, or by a fine of not less than five million won but not more than thirty million won.

2. Among persons who violate Article 44 (1), a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.2 percent or more shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years but not more than six years, or by a fine of not less than ten million won but not more than thirty million won.

3. Among persons who violate Article 44 (1), a person whose blood alcohol concentration is 0.03 percent or more but less than 0.2 percent shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year but not more than five years, or by a fine of not less than five million won but not more than twenty million won.

For the mitigation of the drunk driving (DUI) penalty, the drunk driving attorney argued that, although the client had made a wrong choice and driven while intoxicated, there had been no significant harm, such as casualties or property damage.

The attorney also emphasized that the client, feeling distressed, had voluntarily gone to the local police station and informed the officers of his drunk driving in person, and that he had actively cooperated in the subsequent investigation.

Daeryun's drunk driving attorney requested leniency in support of mitigation of the penalty for the client's second instance of drunk driving.

The drunk driving attorney argued that the client, who faced the drunk driving (DUI) penalty, was deeply remorseful for his offense.

The client had previously been sentenced to a fine for drunk driving. He was blaming himself for having committed the same offense again.

Because the client suffered from hepatitis, he ordinarily did not drink at all, but when his mother's illness worsened, he drank to excess out of distress.

Daeryun's drunk driving attorney conveyed the client's pledge that he would never again engage in drunk driving, which can cause significant social harm.

The client who came to Daeryun regarding mitigation of the drunk driving (DUI) penalty needed the assistance of a drunk driving attorney to defend a lawsuit arising from his second instance of drunk driving.

Daeryun accordingly assembled a team of drunk driving attorneys experienced in such cases and assisted with the overall procedure of the lawsuit to the best of its ability.

As a result, the court accepted the arguments of Daeryun's drunk driving attorney and imposed a suspended sentence on the client.

The client repeatedly expressed his gratitude to the drunk driving attorney who had done his utmost toward the mitigation of his penalty.

If you, like the client in the above case, need mitigation of a drunk driving (DUI) penalty, please come to Daeryun Law Firm for a consultation.