On December 29, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million with a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 29, 2009, respectively. On July 12, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years with prison labor for the same crime, etc.

On November 25, 2018, the Defendant, as a person with two or more times of drinking driving skills, driven a D Poter in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of about 0.074% at a section of about 8km from the front side of the Goyang-dong, Goyang-si, the Defendant’s house, to the front side of the Goyang-gu, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, the Defendant’s house, at around 14:45.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the report on the actual state of drinking drivers;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to criminal history records, reply reports, and investigation reports;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (C) of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had a history of criminal punishment four times including suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (hereinafter referred to as a favorable condition among the reasons for sentencing), the Defendant committed the instant crime, barring any special circumstances to consider in the circumstances in which the Defendant had been driving at the time of the instant crime, and the crime that may cause serious damage to the life, body, and property of another person as well as the offender’s life, body, and property is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflected in the crime of this case shall be considered as favorable to the defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, family relations, motive and circumstances after the crime, and various sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case shall be comprehensively considered.