도로교통법위반(음주운전)
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Punishment of the crime
[criminal history] On September 17, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime as a violation of road traffic law at the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court on September 17, 2008, and a fine of KRW 1 million for the same crime at the Daegu District Court on February 10, 2014.
[Criminal facts] On January 5, 2016, the Defendant driven a 600-meter cub vehicle B at the front of the Gambroat parking lot located in the middle of Daegu Northern-gu, with alcohol content of 0.085 percent, while under the influence of alcohol during blood around January 5, 2016.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Fact-finding reports on drivers of drinking alcohol and inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking alcohol;
1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (the previous and copy of the summary order);
1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;
1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;
1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;
1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act - The favorable circumstances: The fact that there exists no record of being sentenced to suspended sentence or heavier punishment; the fact that a person reflects the crime; the fact that a person again commits the crime of this case even though he had been punished twice by a fine for the same kind of crime; the defendant's age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as per the order by taking into account the various kinds of sentencing factors shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age