On May 8, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Incheon District Court, and on May 1, 2016, by the same court, to a suspended sentence of six months for the same crime.

Although the Defendant had been able to violate the provision on the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol twice or more, on February 27, 2019, at around 16:03, the Defendant driven B-hurged vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.355% from a 500-meter distance from the front of a cafeteria in the trade name in the Jung-gu Incheon Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City to the horizontal distance of about 426.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. Previous records of judgment: Criminal records, etc. and the application of inquiry reports and investigation reports, and statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 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 is that the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months by this court on May 18, 2016 due to a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) committed by the Defendant for a violation of the Road Traffic Act four times after he/she was sentenced to a fine. However, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years by this court on May 18, 2016, since he/she committed the instant crime of the same kind at the same time after the lapse of the grace period and about nine months after he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence, it is inevitable for the Defendant to have been sentenced to

However, given that there are extenuating circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant was able to not commit such a crime in depth and again, the defendant is sentenced to the same punishment as the order within the scope of the discretionary mitigation period.