A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 3, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1 million to a fine of KRW 200,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on December 24, 2010, at the Cheongju District Court issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on August 23, 2012, at the Daejeon High Court sentenced on August 23, 201, the Defendant completed the execution of the sentence on December 30, 2012.

On March 22, 2015, around 14:58, the Defendant driven C salary class with a 0.151% alcohol concentration 0.151% under the influence of alcohol from the front of the community hall in the Cheongju-si, a considerable amount of Cheongju-si, a bank from the front of the community hall in the Cheongju-si, a substantial area of Cheongju-si, to the road in front of 309-7.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Statement of control of DNA preparation;

1. Statement of employer-employed drivers, and statement of employer-employed drivers;

1. Previous convictions: Court rulings, personal identifications and confinements, current status of criminal investigations, application of Acts and subordinate statutes (limited to concurrent criminal records, written judgments and summary orders);

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 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. The punishment of the Defendant who committed the instant crime is inevitable in order to correct his behavior of drinking driving under the influence of alcohol without being well aware of the fact that he was sentenced two times to a punishment due to the crime of driving under influence of alcohol for the reason of sentencing (the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing following the sentencing) under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act.

However, in light of the circumstances, such as the pening of mistake, the scrapping of a vehicle provided for an offense, the fact that the health is not good due to ex post facto surgery in the public notice book, and other conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, the term of punishment shall be imposed as ordered.