A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 August 13, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Young-dong branch of the Young-gu District District Court on August 13, 2009. On the same day, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence for six months by imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On July 2, 2016, the Defendant, who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, once again, driven a B body-man car under the influence of alcohol level of 0.179% in the section of about fivekm from the front day of a new warrant located in the Sinan-dong, Young-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Seoul to the eronomian distance located in the same Eup.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of drinking control;

1. A written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Criminal records as stated in the judgment: Criminal records, etc. and the application of Part IV of the judgment;

1. Relevant laws concerning criminal facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty, and the choice of imprisonment;

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

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

4. The reason for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, even though the defendant had already been punished twice due to the crime of drunk driving, again, committed the instant crime.

The risk of traffic accidents occurred due to the crime of this case, and the blood alcohol concentration level was considerably high 0.179%.

On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant's attitude to recognize the crime of this case and repent his mistake is shown.

After the defendant was punished as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in 2009, there was no criminal record which had been punished again for the crime of drunk driving.

The above is disadvantageous or favorable to the defendant, taking into account all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of this case, and taking into account the following factors: (a) the defendant is taking a compliance driving lecture only once, rather than the sentence imposed by the defendant.