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 May 1, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Eastern District Court, etc. on December 5, 201, and a fine of KRW 4 million for the same crime, etc. on December 5, 201, and on December 30, 201, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 7 million for the same crime at the Seoul East Eastern District Court.

At around 19:50 on December 3, 2014, the Defendant driven a car of about 2m a galgropool while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.210% on the 300-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the Road Traffic Act more than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. A traffic accident report;

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

1. Investigation reports (in addition to the Madmark);

1. Statement on the occurrence of D traffic accidents;

1. Previous for judgment: Criminal history records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (attached to the same type of summary order and indictment), and copies of each summary order attached thereto, and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes applicable thereto;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and community service order has the history of being punished for a violation of the Road Traffic Act due to a drunk driving, such as the first head of the judgment, and in particular, on November 12, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of drinking (0.138% of blood alcohol concentration) and was under investigation and was scheduled to be prosecuted after being charged for an investigation (as a summary indictment on December 5, 2014), the Defendant was under the influence of drinking again within a short time without being aware of it, and the blood alcohol level was very high, and the path was parked.