On September 23, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daejeon District Court on September 23, 2009, and a fine of 2.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the same court on May 23, 201, and on August 13, 201, the above court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years for 6 months of imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and on November 15, 2013, 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the above court on December 19, 201, despite having been sentenced to each of the crimes of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Daejeon District Court on December 10, 2013, the Defendant was driving at the distance of 5km from the front of the "C" restaurant in Daejeon-gu to the Seo-gu D apartmentdong 170% of alcohol level.

Accordingly, the defendant violated the prohibition of drinking driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Criminal land, inquiry into the results of the regulation of drinking driving and notification of the results thereof, report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, circumstantial report of a drinking driver and report on the internal investigation;

1. The register of driver's licenses, and making inquiries into the car register;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal records, investigation reports (applicable Article 148-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act), summary orders, and application of statutes governing judgment;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing in light of Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (hereinafter referred to as the following circumstances favorable to the accused) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for one to two years;

2. Determination of sentence: The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and February 1st, the defendant was divided in depth, the occurrence of a multi-accident did not occur, the treatment of alcohol addiction was received, etc., and the interval between the last criminal record in the judgment is relatively short, and the social relationship with the defendant is clear, such as support for the father-child who has no import from the present liver cancer and the mother who has no import.

However, this case.