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

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 15, 2016, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) in the support of the Jeonju District Court on January 15, 2016 and KRW 5 million for the same crime in the same court on July 9, 2018.

On June 15, 2018, the Defendant driven a 3 freight vehicle, E, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.135% in blood, on the front of “D” located in Jung-Eup Si, Jung-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement (as at the date of the second public trial, in the case);

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

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Investigation reports (main driver's circumstantial reports) and investigation reports (related to the calculation of the said dic-mark formula);

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (report attached to a suspect's previous conviction and a copy of a summary order);

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. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the conditions of sentencing favorable to the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors are repeated for sentencing on the grounds of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Order to Attend Education has the history of punishing the Defendant for driving alcohol twice already (in particular, the Defendant committed the instant crime again on June 1, 2018 only 14 days, despite the fact that the Defendant was under the influence of driving alcohol on June 1, 2018), the Defendant consistently committed the instant crime in an investigative agency only by denying the instant crime, and by reasoning, the Defendant was disadvantageous to the Defendant at the time of the instant crime.

However, it is advantageous to the defendant that the defendant recognized all of his criminal acts in this law late and reflects them, that the defendant does not have any criminal record other than fine, that the defendant does not commit any second offense, and that the cargo vehicle in the judgment is scrapped, and that the defendant is receiving a medical treatment for proof of alcohol.