On June 8, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 500,000 won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was sentenced to a summary order of 1,500,000 won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on February 13, 2017. On November 28, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor at the Jung-gu District Court on March 10, 2018, and completed the execution of the sentence at a governmental prison on March 10, 2018.

On April 1, 2018, at around 06:44, the Defendant driven a car c E200 with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.098% under the influence of alcohol in approximately 1km from the road in front of the Daegu Northern-gu B market to the road in front of the liberg in the same Dong.

As a result, the defendant had already been punished for drunk driving more than twice, but he again drank driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle at sea);

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports, judgments, application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the current status of confinement of individuals;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated offenders is a convenient means of transportation. However, since it is a dangerous article that can be inferred by a dangerous weapon, a person who operates an automobile is obliged to obtain a license and operate an automobile with due care in normal conditions.

In particular, drinking driving may lead to large accidents by driving under a state where the ability to exercise due diligence and physical exercise has been significantly deteriorated, and it is highly dangerous as it may cause serious harm to unspecified persons.

In this case, since the defendant driving a motor vehicle under the influence of blood alcohol concentration of 0.098% has increased the risk of traffic accident, the illegality of the crime is not weak.