A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

[criminal history] On December 1, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) from the Daegu District Court Port Branch on December 1, 2008, and on April 20, 201, a summary order of KRW 2 million as an identical crime at the Seoul Central District Court on April 20, 201, respectively.

[Criminal facts] The Defendant is a person who is engaged in driving a car into DWO halogol.

1. Around April 18, 2018, the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) driven a halogen car with a maximum alcohol content of 0.160% in the 1km section from the road near the shooting distance of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital, Gangnam-gu to the road near the Hyundai Apartment-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act.

2. On April 18, 2018, the Defendant was under the influence of 0.160% of alcohol concentration in blood transfusion around 00:26 on April 18, 2018, and the Defendant was driving a string motor vehicle with a width of 0.160% at a speed of 0.160%, thereby driving two laness on the two-lanes adjacent to the Hyundai Apartment-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Mo-dong, Seoul, at the speed of about 60km in speed from the place of Hyundai department to the Olympic Games.

At that time, there is an intersection where signal apparatus is installed in the front side, so in such a case, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to reduce speed by putting an electric-way signal, and to maintain a safety distance by putting the driving condition of the vehicle driven ahead of it into consideration.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and neglected to do so, and neglected to do so, and did not neglect the duty of the front time and proceed without reducing speed, and led to the failure of the Defendant to drive the F.M. E (68 S) drive, which was stopped under the new subparagraph, in front of the driving direction, in front of halog car.