On March 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking), etc. on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking), on April 10, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 3 million on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking), and on the grounds of a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in driving in drinking), on November 9, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 6 months.

On September 7, 2017, around 05:05, the Defendant driven CK5 cars while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.098% from the front road of the area located in the Dong-dong of the Dong-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Ansan-si to the front road of the same Gu-si driving.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous conviction: Application of criminal history inquiry, written judgment and copies of each summary order to Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. It is recognized that the reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act include: (a) the Defendant appears to reflect on the reasons for sentencing; (b) the Defendant’s father’s health is not good; and (c) the sale of vehicles.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine on two occasions due to the crime of drinking and driving without a license, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of drinking driving, and committed the instant crime.

The Defendant was driving with the knowledge that he would have been able to do so.

However, in light of the fact that the alcohol concentration among the blood of the defendant is not low, that the defendant drank 2 sicks even according to the defendant's statement, that the defendant was exposed to the police on the road, and that the defendant was exposed to the police on the road, this cannot be justified.

In light of this point, it is difficult to suspend double enforcement even if the same crime has been committed again.

The decision is judged.

The age, occupation, sex, environment of the defendant, and others.