On February 8, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), etc. at the Daejeon District Court on February 8, 2007, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on February 10, 201 due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the support of the Suwon Friwon Friwon Friwon, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of

On June 7, 2017, around 21:27, the Defendant driven B K5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.145% in blood from the 150-meter section to the front of the restaurant, “Saego Calan,” which is located on 11-gil, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, 81, to the north-ro 4, a 35-gil.

As a result, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition on drinking at least twice, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

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

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. An explanatory note;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on driving alcohol;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under the liquor:

1. Investigation report (verification of driving distance);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: A criminal investigation report (Attachment to the same type of power), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of subparagraph (A) as a result of inquiry;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 53 of the Criminal Act for mitigated amount of punishment (the favorable circumstances of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing), the fact that the defendant is under the time of and reflects the crime of this case, and the occurrence of traffic accidents due to driving of the drinking of this case, etc. is favorable to the defendant, in view of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of 4 times a fine due to the same crime, including the record of the crime in the judgment of the defendant, and one time a suspended sentence, and the current Road Traffic Act provides that the person who violated the prohibition of driving of drinking shall be punished more strictly.