[criminal power] On May 20, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to four months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Southern District Court of the Jeonju on May 20, 2008; on April 12, 2011, the same court was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime; on July 9, 2013, the same court was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime; and on June 12, 2014, the former prison completed the execution of the sentence.

【Criminal Facts】

On June 3, 2016, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.058% of blood alcohol concentration on June 10:19, 2016, driven a Bunch-free car at the section of about 2 km from the front of a restaurant in which it is impossible to know the trade name in the Hannam-si of Gyeonggi-do to the front of such a restaurant in the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the result of crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous records: Criminal records, investigation reports (report attached to the same type of court records of a suspect), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. Considering the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation and the fact that the blood alcohol content of the instant case is relatively low, the Defendant repeated the same mistake during the period of repeated crime even though he had been subject to criminal punishment several times due to drunk driving, even though he had been subject to criminal punishment three times due to his drunk driving. The Defendant selected a punishment by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s change in the nature of his own illness only is slickly slick, and (b) the Defendant’s age and other all other factors of sentencing are considered to be difficult