On March 23, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 700,000 for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Gwangju District Court's support for interest, and the same year.

5. The order of a fine of KRW 1.5 million was issued for the same crime in the wooden branch of the Gwangju District Court on December 5, 2014, and the order of a fine of KRW 7 million was issued for the same crime in the Gwangju District Court for the same crime on December 5, 2014, and on January 26, 2017, upon being sentenced to imprisonment for six months with labor for the same crime and for two years of suspended execution on two or more occasions, and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act was violated for two or more occasions.

On June 7, 2018, the Defendant driven around 100 meters from the 1,00-si C market to D apartment at the same time while under the influence of alcohol leveling to 0.240%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: Application of inquiry, each summary order, and copies of the judgment;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Act on the Mitigation of Small Quantity Mitigation is that the Defendant had the power to be punished for driving under the influence of alcohol four times, and the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she was currently under the suspension period of the execution of imprisonment due to driving under the influence of alcohol, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendant even on the ground that he/she committed the instant crime. In addition, the degree of alcohol concentration in blood at the time of driving of the instant case is very high.

In addition, the same sentence as the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions shown in the records and the theory of changes, such as the control of the crime of this case, the accused's reflectivity, family relations, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.