On January 28, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 700,000 for a fine due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Ulsan District Court. On March 15, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime, etc. at the same court. On July 12, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten-month for the same crime, etc.

On August 12, 2016, at around 01:55, the Defendant driven approximately 1 km of the rocketing passenger car from the front day of the flusium in Jinju to the new flusium road located in the same Dong, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.109% of blood alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. On-going driving reports, reports on the circumstantial statements of drinking drivers, and inquiries into the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Investigation report (reports attached to the previous records, written judgments and summary orders), criminal records, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation has a history of having been punished three times due to drunk driving, and that the Defendant repeated the instant crime even if he was sentenced to a suspended sentence on one occasion, the Defendant’s drinking alcohol is significant, and the Defendant committed the instant crime during the suspended sentence period, it is inevitable to strictly punish the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant reflects his criminal act, that the defendant does not commit the crime of this case during the period of the same suspension of execution, that the defendant makes it hard to say that he does not drive his motor vehicle in the future, that he entrusted the trade mediation of his motor vehicle, that the same criminal records of the defendant have been over five years, that the defendant has no penalty power for the defendant, etc., shall be considered as favorable to the defendant.