On July 6, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Seocho District Court's territorial branch on July 6, 2007, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the same court on January 24, 2008, respectively, and on December 21, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the same court on December 21, 2012, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 2013.

On April 4, 2013, around 15:03, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of about 400 meters from the front road of the Choyang-dong in Seocho-si, Seocho-si to the front road of the Choyang-si, 15:05, at about 15:05, the Defendant used a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of at least 0.059% while under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of inquiry report on criminal records, etc. (A), investigation report (Attachment of the same summary order and a copy of the judgment), previous records of disposition, results of confirmation, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1), subparagraph 1 of Article 152, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (hereinafter the following reason for sentencing) include the following favorable circumstances: (a) recognition of and reflects on a crime committed by the defendant; (b) the blood alcohol concentration is relatively low; (c) the driving distance is short; (d) the defendant has no criminal conviction or higher; and (e) the defendant had the opportunity to receive a judgment simultaneously with the final and conclusive judgment; (b) however, the defendant can have the history of having been punished for the same criminal offense; and (c) the appellate court in relation to the case was sentenced to a suspended sentence for the same criminal offense on December 12, 2012, while the appellate court was under the influence of the same criminal punishment (amended by the appellate court on April 17, 2013).