On January 8, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating road traffic laws (drinking driving) in the Daejeon District Court's red support on January 8, 201, and a fine of KRW 7 million for the same crime in the same court on March 17, 2017, and the same year.

8. 23. The same court is under suspension of execution after being sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment or 2 years of suspended execution for the same crime.

On March 31, 2018, the Defendant driven two cargo vehicles of Cpoter while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.216% at approximately 80 meters from the 100-meter section front of the same city, which is located in the 39-lane in the elth of LM in the 39-gil, at the lowest of 22:20 Boh City on March 31, 2018 to LM 333 of the same city.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The actual investigation report on traffic accidents;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (victim D telephone communications);

1. The driver's license ledger (A);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A), investigation report (formers and confirmation reports);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1, Article 44 (1) (the point of drinking), Article 152 (1) 1, and Article 43 of the Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishment provided for in a crime of violating the Traffic Act of a road with heavier punishment);

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the favorable circumstances that can be seen as the reason for sentencing) of the Act on the Mitigation of Small Quantity is that the Defendant had been convicted of five drinking offenses since 2000, and re-offendered with a very high drinking level even though he was under suspension of the execution due to the previous conviction, and the instant crime was insignificant as a result of the instant crime, but the accident occurred.

It is inevitable to punish the defendant who habitually repeats drinking by using the same vehicle without any doubt or awareness even in the repeated punishment and the warning of the law.

This is against this, and there is no criminal conviction of the same kind of punishment, if any.