2. The judgment of this case is that the defendant, a village bus driver, drives approximately 12 km of village bus under the influence of alcohol level 0.179% in blood.

While operating a village bus, the Defendant stopped in front of the street station, purchased one bottle of a tenant at the convenience store, starting a marina city bus at the end of the stop, and repeatedly driven the instant drinking, starting from the village bus at the end of the stop, and returning to the end of the stop two times.

As above, the Defendant was driving a village bus with his own knowledge so as to cause serious road traffic risks to bus passengers and the general public as well as to cause a traffic accident that leads to a vehicle parked during drinking.

In this respect, the nature of the crime of this case is very heavy.

The Defendant is engaged in transportation business by cargo vehicle drivers, taxi drivers, village bus drivers, etc. while serving in transportation business by means of a cargo vehicle driver, a fine of 0.219% alcohol level during blood in 201, a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) that drives one ton of a cargo vehicle in the condition of 0.219%, a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) during 2003, a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) during 2010, a fine of violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) during blood alcohol level of 0.136%, and a fine of violation of the Road Traffic Act (dacting) during 2015.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case in spite of the criminal history of the same kind of crime, which is subject to criminal punishment for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) seven times in the past.

As well as the lack of compliance consciousness and effort to prevent recidivism, this defendant's attitude and attitude toward the operation of the vehicle as a profession without any particular criminal liability.