A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 September 29, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a violation of road traffic law (driving in drinking), a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for the same crime in the same court on January 17, 2012, and a summary order of KRW 5 million for the same crime at the Seoul Central District Court on December 20, 2012, respectively.

Although the Defendant had had a history of driving alcohol twice or more as above, on February 18, 2016, while under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.088% in blood around 05:45 on Feb. 18, 2016, the Defendant driven D gender car and proceeded with approximately 500 meters from the roads of the Namdong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Seogdong-ro 190, an Asan-ro 190 square meters from the roads of the same Chapter to the front road of the 4th apartment of the same Chapter.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under the liquor:

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (the application of the above dmark formula);

1. Previous conviction: Application of a written inquiry, a criminal investigation report (former and attachment of the summary order) and a copy of the summary order attached thereto;

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 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Social Service Order Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc., was that the Defendant, for the reason of sentencing, committed the instant crime even though he/she had the criminal history of being punished several times due to drinking, and that the Defendant lacks compliance consciousness in light of his/her behavior during which he/she was aware of his/her identity and repeated driving of drinking.

In light of the fact that the nature of the crime is very poor, but the defendant seems to have been driving because he mispercing that a considerable time of drinking flows after drinking is changed, if the judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive, the status of the defendant would have a considerable impact, and his mistake is divided later, and the vehicle in possession is owned.