A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 July 20, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same offense at the Gwangju District Court on November 25, 2014.

On December 24, 2016, under the influence of alcohol content of 00:00:05, the Defendant driven B car rental vehicles from the street in the vicinity of the flow parking lot located in the Gwangju Mine-gu to the front of the high-tech hospital located in the same Gu, in the state of alcohol content of 0.106%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (the same type of criminal history) statute;

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 to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order and Order to Attend Education Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though the Defendant was found to have been drunk due to drinking driving, and thus, the Defendant’s nature is bad.

However, considering the defendant's age, sex, environment, circumstances before and after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the defendant did not repeat the crime, and there is no record of punishment heavier than the suspension of execution, etc., the punishment against the defendant was determined.