On February 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on June 28, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2014. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Labor Standards Act and was sentenced to two years of suspension on February 24, 2015 and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on February 24, 2015.

On February 8, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of five million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on February 8, 2013, and a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the same court on February 13, 2014.

On July 7, 2015, the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, and driven a DNA spawn truck with the blood alcohol concentration of 0.150% at the entrance of the river parking lot located in front of the river located in the 13-29 Yan-dong, Yan-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong, Man-dong

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Any traffic accident report, actual condition investigation report, report on detection of a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and report on internal investigation (victim E);

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (verification of the records of the same kind of crime), criminal records, copies of each judgment, copies of summary orders, results of search of each integrated case, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

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 Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has committed the instant crime again during the suspension period due to the same kind of records, etc.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration is also high.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions recorded in the records of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered.