On March 10, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of four million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Busan District Court's Branch Branch of Incheon District Court on March 10, 2009, and a fine of two million and five million won due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Incheon District Court's Branch of Incheon District Court on September 7, 2010

On April 11, 2013, at around 22:25, the Defendant driven a B-learning car from the front of a restaurant where the trade name in the Mapo-Eup, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si cannot be identified, to the front parking lot of about 1k-ri, 103, a 1km village new apartment, located in 972 in the same Eup, from the front of the restaurant where the trade name in the Mapo-ri, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-ri, Kimpo-ri, Kimpo-ri, the Defendant

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has been limited to six times the criminal defendant was sentenced to a punishment for drunk driving or non-licensed driving. In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to a fine on three occasions after being sentenced to a suspended sentence due to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) or a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) in 2001, and that the defendant again committed the instant crime despite being sentenced to a fine on three occasions after being sentenced to a suspended sentence, and that the amount of drinking alcohol is very high to 0.218%, it is necessary to punish the defendant.

I would like to say.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant's mistake is against the defendant and again is expected not to drive under the influence of alcohol, the fact that the accident occurred due to the drunk driving, and the lapse of ten years from the date of the suspended execution, etc., the age, character, environment, background, means and result of the crime, etc. of the defendant.