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

【Power of crime】 On August 19, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court on the same day, and on June 2, 2017, a summary order of KRW 2 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at least twice by the same court, respectively, and violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

【Criminal facts” around 00:04 around July 2, 2017, the Defendant driven a cub car in B while under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.065% from around 300 meters to the front of the North Incheon Postal Office located in 1373 to the front of the same road in the same funeral route.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the circumstances of driving and the circumstances of the driver who is placed in the main place;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (Attachment to the same criminal record and summary order);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The Defendant, on the grounds of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, once again driven alcohol despite the fact that he/she had been sentenced to a fine due to drinking twice in the last three years.

In particular, the crime of this case is likely to be criticized as re-offending at the time of the lapse of one month from the time of receiving a summary order due to the immediately preceding drinking driving.

The defendant has a history of criminal punishment four times including the above drinking driving criminal records, and among them, he/she has been punished by a fine due to a non-licenseless driving.

In full view of the social risks of drinking driving and the fact that the defendant himself/herself made a statement to the effect that drinking driving becomes a habit in police investigations.