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 June 26, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Changwon District Court's Jinju branch on the same day. On August 19, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,00,000 as a fine for the same crime at the same court on the same day, and on March 18, 2014, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for the same crime

On August 14, 2016, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, and driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of not less than 0.146% from approximately eight kilometers to the front road of a single high school located in the same side from the lurg ginseng distance on the cross-section of the Singuk-gun, Busan Metropolitan City on August 14, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Report on the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, and the statement of the situation of drinking drivers;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A), investigation reports (former records and summary orders);

1. Relevant Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, the applicable provisions of the Act as stated in the indictment, which are applicable provisions of Article 148-2(2)1 and Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, are deemed to be written in writing.

Imprisonment Selection

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. In light of the fact that the defendant's reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act committed the crime of this case in spite of the fact that he had been punished three times due to drinking driving, it is reasonable to enjoy drinking, and that he escaped at a certain section to avoid drinking control, etc., although the criminal liability of the defendant is not less than that of the defendant, the defendant's act of crime does not reflect his criminal act, again, the defendant does not drive the vehicle of this case, and scrapped the vehicle of this case, and there is no criminal power other than the fine, etc. in favor of the defendant.