On December 11, 2006, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of road traffic law (driving alcohol) in the Daejeon District Court's Red on December 11, 2006, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the same offense in the same court on September 9, 2008, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for the same offense in the same court on November 22, 2013, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for the same offense, etc. on at least two occasions. However, on April 1, 2017, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle in the state of drinking alcohol level of about 377 meters from the front of the Hongsung-gun Hongdong Red Medical Center at around 03:08, to the front road of the same Eup-Myeon, from around 200 meters in the south-do red basin.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. Photographs;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, text of judgment, and three-dimensional statutes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Six months to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor for a prison labor within the scope of applicable sentences in law; and

2. Although the Defendant had previously been sentenced to five times a suspended sentence (two times a suspended sentence among them), he was found to be under the influence of alcohol in a state of about one year and half a year after the expiration of the suspended period due to driving of alcohol, and of about 0.104% of alcohol concentration during the same while driving of alcohol. The Defendant was found to be under the influence of the driver’s seat while stopping on the new wall.

The defendant and his/her defense counsel have been driving on his/her behalf in order to move the vehicle to a safe place while he/she was staying home due to the problem of fees.

One of the arguments is difficult to accept the above argument according to the location where the defendant's driver's vehicle, who can be known by the photograph (the nine pages of the investigation record) as seen earlier, is found.

On the other hand, the defendant on November 22, 2013 in this court.