Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act punishs those who violate Article 44 (1) of the same Act not less than twice (persons who drive motor vehicles, etc. not less than twice under the influence of alcohol) and drive motor vehicles, etc. under the influence of alcohol. Thus, it is clear that it is clear that the defendant's recognition of criminal facts by specifying the date and time of driving motor vehicles at least twice in the past while under the influence of alcohol does not pose no substantial disadvantage to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense, and therefore, it is recognized as criminal facts by arranging the facts charged

On December 25, 2006, April 7, 2008, and December 4, 2010, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol and violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice. On November 1, 2014, at around 15:24, the Defendant driven a B-hand motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol at approximately 150 meters in a section of about 150 meters, from the front of a cafeteria in the mutual influence, located near the Sinpo-si reservoir located in Sinpo-si on the same side to the front of the entrance of the reservoir located in the same Dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the investigation report (limited to the same kind of power);

1. In light of the circumstances, such as the relevant provision of criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of sound driving), the fact that a person has been punished several times, including imprisonment, for the same kind of crime as the reason for sentencing the choice of imprisonment, and the fact that the person has not been present in the trial, a sentence shall be issued as per Disposition.