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

On November 19, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to one year to imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), etc. on October 17, 2017, and was charged with a violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act on at least two occasions, such as a request for summary order by a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), at the Jeju District Court, and driving a vehicle CK7 under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.218% in blood from around the 6km section of approximately 6km to the 16:30, 16:30 on October 6, 2017, the Defendant was in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of an inquiry letter, text of judgment, and copy of summary order, such as criminal history;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act - The defendant has been subject to punishment for the same kind of crime. - The defendant’s blood alcohol concentration exceeds the upper limit of the punishment for drinking alcohol, even though he/she was a drinking crime committed on September 2017 and was subject to an investigation summary order, he/she prevents him/her from committing the second offense without reflectivity. The defendant is fully aware of the facts constituting the crime. - The defendant’s history of drinking alcohol is one time in 209 and 2017, respectively.

It is difficult to see that there is no possibility of the correction of the accused through the community service order. The sentencing should be imposed as ordered in consideration of all the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process in each of the above circumstances.