SINGAPORE: After the prosecutors filed an appeal, a drink driver who dented and scratched another car as he turned into the parallel parking lot was sentenced to two weeks in jail instead of his good.
Justice See Kee Oon concluded that the lower court’s fine for careless driving was” manifestly inadequate” in a decision made public on Wednesday( May 3 ).
In a city court, Cheng Chang Tong, the vehicle, admitted guilt to two charges.
For careless racing, he was given a fine of S 4,000 and was prohibited from driving for 30 month. He was also ordered to pay an S 7, 000 good and have his driving privileges suspended for three years for drunk driving.
Sentence was based on a second charge for failing to notify the survivor of the damage and offer his information.
On the evening of February 5, 2022, Cheng admitted to consuming four miniature glasses of” Chivas” at his store on Upper Bukit Timah Road before returning to Block 220 Petir Road.
He hit the victim’s van, which was parked back, on the right side as he turned into a parallel parking lot.
The victim’s vehicle had scratches and dents on the back, and both vehicles were damaged.
In two hours later, the victim called the police after finding the damage. Both at his house and the Traffic Police Headquarters, Cheng failed a breathalyzer study.
Later, Cheng covered the cost of the victim’s inspection, which came to Mho$ 2, 400.
Criminal Restate
The prosecution argued in its argument that the S$ 4, 000 good was obviously insufficient. For the careless driving offense, it had sought & nbsp, three weeks in jail and three years in disqualification.
Unrepresented Cheng claimed to be elderly and added that he had while sold his vehicle and stopped operating a vehicle. He claimed to have” few things to attend to around” and a recent diagnosis of neural issues in his hand, but that he understood that drinking while driving was wrong and asked the court for forgiveness.
Cheng has two prior convictions for speeding, in 1998 and 2004, so according to Justice See, he is both a serious criminal and repeat offenders.
He cited the case’s aggravating elements, such as the high alcohol content and the profound potential problems. Possible problems would not have been severe, according to the lower court jury.
Justice See concluded that the district judge had never properly taken into account Cheng’s potential for serious problems when driving while intoxicated.
With his family in tow, he traveled at least 1.6 kilometers from Upper Bukit Timah Road to Petir Road through a neighborhood with other cars and pedestrians.
Additionally, there was property damage, and Justice See discovered that the lower courtyard judge had mistakenly assigned the way to a less severe section of the punishment model.
Justice See also discovered that Cheng’s some compounded offenses, such as speeding in 1990, 1995, 1998, and 2007, inconsiderate moving in 2012, or crossing dual white lines in 2020, were not taken into account by the district judge.
Cheng had claimed to have” waited a as” and was ignorant, so when it came to failing to notify the victim of the ruin, he could not produce any notes.
Justice See, however, argued that this was an attack to dismiss the relevant cost and that it should be disregarded.