On December 3, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Eastern District Court on December 3, 201, and issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on July 1, 2004. On April 29, 2002, the Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Dong Branch Support of the Seoul District Court on April 29, 200, and issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Dong Branch Support of the Seoul District Court on December 4, 200.

Despite the fact that the Defendant was punished twice or more for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking) as above, the Defendant driven C X-ray car at around February 3, 2016 at around 23:17, in a state of under the influence of alcohol of about 0.074% of alcohol concentration in the blood, from around 98-lane Ariro 24, Gangdong-gu, Seoul, Gangdong-gu, to the front day of the life-sustaining day of Gangdong-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on the driving of drinking and statement in the circumstances of the driver;

1. References to inquiries, such as criminal history, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on investigation reports (related to the same kind of force of the suspect);

1. Article 148-2 of the Road Traffic Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the same Act concerning the crime; the choice of imprisonment with prison labor;

1. The sentence is to be determined as ordered by taking into account the favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) four times a fine due to driving of alcohol for the reason of sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act; (b) the fact that a person once a suspended sentence was sentenced to criminal punishment due to refusal to measure alcohol, despite the fact that the person once a suspended sentence was served, once again drives alcohol; and (c) the fact that the person has the most favorable status to support his or her wife and two children; and (d) the fact