On November 23, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Eastern District Court. On January 19, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Central District Court. On October 12, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Ansan District Court.

On November 27, 2018, at around 04:00, the Defendant driven a E-broman car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.103% at the 3km section from the Do in front of a commercial building near Sejong apartment to the roads front of the D Elementary School near Sejong apartment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. On-site statement of a drinking driver, on-site photograph, copy of the ledger of use of a drinking measuring instrument, 112 reported records, and inquiry into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports;

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 for discretionary mitigation is not only before the first head of the crime as indicated in the judgment, but also on January 27, 2015, the Defendant committed the instant crime, even though the court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (recognating to take a negative measure) and had been sentenced several times for the same crime, and even if there was a history of serving a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, the Defendant

However, considering the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and the drinking value is not high, the background leading to the case, and all other circumstances known through the pleadings of this case, such as the character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. of the defendant, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.