However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On May 14, 2017, at around 23:10, the Defendant driven B Poter truck under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.213% from the 7km section from the front of the mutual influent restaurant located in the Southern-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seo-gu to the front road of the 23:40 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under drinking, inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving under drinking, and the circumstantial records of drivers under driving under drinking;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a response to appraisal, 1, 2 (Digitalization Documents), and a report on the detection of drivers in charge of the primary business;

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

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. On February 4, 2015, the Defendant had a record of criminal punishment of 13 times, including a fine of three million won due to driving under drinking on February 4, 2015.

The Defendant stated in an investigative agency that the fourth detection of the crime of this case was caused by drinking driving.

The drinking level is very heavy, and the driving distance in which drinking is driven is also reasonable.

Considering the social risk of drinking driving, there is a need to punish the defendant's crime heavierly.

However, the defendant recognizes the crime in this court and shows the attitude of reflectivity.

There are several criminal records on the criminal punishment of the defendant, but after the around 2003, only one person has been sentenced to a fine on February 4, 2015 due to driving of drinking, and only one person has been sentenced to a fine.

The Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant was demanding the measurement of blood collection as he is engaged in essential business. Thus, the instant crime may be at a disadvantage due to the instant crime.