[criminal power] On July 1, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the port branch of the Daegu District Court on July 1, 2008, a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime in the same court on August 16, 2011, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime in the same court on September 16, 2013, respectively.

【Criminal Facts】

Although the Defendant was punished twice or more due to drunk driving, on February 14, 2015, the Defendant driven BTXG car from around 50 meters in front of the old Si/Gu Yanpo-si Si Yanpo-si Yanpo-si Yanpo-si located in the Gu Yanpo-si Yanpo-si Yanpo-si in the Gu Yanpo-si Yanpo-si Yanpo-si, Nampo-si Yanpo-si, Nampo-si.

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. Registers of driver's licenses;

1. Before judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (report accompanied by a summary order of the same kind of force);

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1, and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting a crime (the point of a sound driving) and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 152 and 43 of the Road Traffic Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (the punishment imposed on a person who commits a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act due to a heavier drinking operation);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. There are favorable circumstances such as the mere drinking of the reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1548, Apr. 1, 2007) and the fact that the driving distance is relatively short and the circumstances to be considered in light of the circumstances, and the Defendant’s reflectment.

(The above circumstances shall be considered for reasons of discretionary mitigation). However, there are four times the records of the criminal defendant who was punished for drunk driving, whichever is recently.