A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On January 3, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million with a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. in the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-do branch on January 3, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 5 million with the same court on January 11, 2012, respectively.

On March 25, 2014, at around 00:30 on March 25, 2014, the Defendant driven B Mit car in the state of alcohol with approximately 500 meters alcohol concentration of approximately 0.146% from the road front of the warehouse located in the Yellow-si, Seoul Metropolitan City to the front road of the Gic-knive-knive-kin restaurant in the same Dong.

Accordingly, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act as a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on the actual status of a host driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (Attachment to a summary order of the same criminal records);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. In light of Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (i.e., refusal of measurement of alcohol as of June 14, 201; 0.183% of the blood alcohol concentration as of October 14, 201; violation of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act; 0.215% of the blood alcohol concentration as of November 13, 201; 0.215% of the blood alcohol concentration as of November 13, 201; and the number of alcohol consumption of the instant crime constitutes a high level, Defendant should be punished. However, the two-year amount of alcohol after the last crime appears to have been faithfully living; the instant crime appears to have been driven to have been discovered while the Defendant was working at the same time under a lower level of alcohol alcohol; and the Defendant’s depth of his mistake is divided).

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

1. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.;