[criminal history] On August 18, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking) at the Daegu District Court, and on February 12, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months. On June 16, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating road traffic laws at the Daejeon District Court. On June 24, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of obstructing the performance of official duties in the Daejeon District Court's Support for Daejeon District Court, which became final and conclusive on August 24, 201.

[2] On June 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven a rocketing car with a alcohol level of about 0.204 percent under the influence of alcohol level 0.204 percent from the front line of the house located in the vicinity of the 201:14 U.S. Seosan-si, Masan-si to the 407 U.S. Mansan-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. A response to a request for appraisal (29,30 pages of evidence records);

1. Previous convictions: Application of the results of inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation reports (report attached to the previous rulings), reporting of the previous convictions and results of confirmation of the previous convictions of the disposition (Article 87 pages of evidence records);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reasons for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Act on the Mitigation of Small Quantity are not among those who had been sentenced two times of suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime, and again commits the crime in this case while being tried for a different kind of crime, and that the defendant's blood alcohol concentration in the blood at the time of driving is very high to 0.204%, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, there is a conflict between the defendant and the defendant's mistake, and the defendant's obstruction of the execution of official duties in the judgment of concurrent crimes after Article 37 of the Criminal Code, and the case is punished at the same time.