However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 8, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act in the Southern District Court of the Jeonju on April 8, 2008, and on October 26, 2012, the same court was issued a summary order of one million won for the same crime and has been punished six times due to drinking driving.

On June 4, 2015, at around 15:05, the Defendant driven a Maz car with a 0.094% alcohol concentration 0.094% under the influence of alcohol from the 13km section of approximately 13 meters away from the brea-dong, Namwon-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the roads of Namwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving, and report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, references to criminal records, investigation reports (attached records of the same type of power, etc.);

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. Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( Taking into account the favorable conditions of sentencing among the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following factors are repeatedly taken into account for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., even though the Defendant had had had had had had had had had had had had had had been punished for drinking driving several times, again commits the instant crime, and the fact that the distance of drinking driving of the instant case has considerably long is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, under the circumstances favorable to the defendant, the fact that the defendant is against whom, the defendant is receiving alcohol addiction treatment in the future, and that the defendant is expected not to repeat again, shall be considered as a favorable condition to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined like the order in consideration of all other sentencing conditions specified in the argument of this case.

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