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

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 25, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the credit branch of Suwon District Court on July 25, 2008, a fine of three million won for the same crime at the Suwon District Court on September 5, 2008, and a fine of two million won for the same crime at the Hongwon District Court on November 25, 2008, and a person who was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for the same crime on November 25, 2008 and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two or more times for the same crime.

Nevertheless, at around 22:52 on June 27, 2015, the Defendant driven a Bsti vehicle under the influence of alcohol level 0.179% under the influence of alcohol level 0.179%, from the CU convenience store located in cU convenience to the back side of the stimulgy building located in the same Sigracium located in the place where it is controlled.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Records before judgment: Application of criminal records, etc. and Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. In light of the fact that a defendant with the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act drives the instant motor vehicle in the state of considerable drinking even though he had three times the past history of punishment for driving under the influence of alcohol in the past, the criminal liability of the defendant is unlimited, but the defendant recognized the instant facts charged, and reflects his wrong. Since 2008, there was no history of punishment for the same kind of mistake, and there was no history of punishment for the same kind of mistake, and other various circumstances recorded in the records, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment