On December 8, 2006, the Defendant was notified of a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the credit branch of Suwon District Court on December 29, 2006, a fine of KRW 2 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Suwon District Court on December 29, 2006, and a fine of KRW 3 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on June 26, 2009, respectively.

On April 27, 2012, at around 00:38, under the influence of alcohol content of 0.08% in blood, the Defendant driven approximately 7 km car on the front of the 208 Gyeonggi-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mapo-dong Ypo-dong 1, Gangnam-gu Ypo-dong 208.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement in the circumstances of a drinking driver, and statement of the result of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiry reports, such as criminal records, investigation reports (former records and attachment of judgment) and statutes;

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 (i.e., blood alcohol concentration is relatively high) of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant had had been punished three times prior to the instant crime, he again committed the instant crime even though he had the record of being punished for drunk driving.

The Road Traffic Act has a provision of aggravated punishment when a person who has been punished for drinking twice or more in consideration of the risk of drinking driving re-driving.

Considering the past history of the defendant's drinking driving, the defendant is bound to be sentenced to imprisonment.

However, the circumstances favorable to the fact that the blood alcohol concentration was relatively high at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case shall be considered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.