A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Punishment of the crime

On May 3, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) with respect to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on August 24, 2010, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 by the Seoul Northern District Court on August 24, 2010.

On November 17, 2016, at around 03:40, the Defendant driven a Chand car with a distance of about 250 meters from the front of the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yongsan-gu's Han River to the front of the 347 Cheongpa Public Security Center, to the front of the 297 Cheongcheon-gu Han River, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with a alcohol concentration of about 0.101% during blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver and a report on the circumstances of the primary driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of written inquiries about criminal history and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. The sentencing conditions stipulated under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, home environment, and health conditions, for the reasons specified in Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of small amount of punishment, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the sentencing conditions stipulated under Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

- On October 20, 2016, the Defendant committed the instant crime at the time when he/she was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence for a special injury crime, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court sentenced on ten (1) year to a two-year suspended sentence, and on October 28, 2016, the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2016 (the prosecutor’s claim for the cancellation of the suspended sentence and the claim for the cancellation of the suspended sentence is pending in the Seoul Central District Court). - The criminal facts of the instant suspended sentence are different from those of the instant crime.

Even if the warning effect of the judgment of probation was not against the defendant.

It is inevitable to see.

- The Defendant, as stated in the judgment, had already been punished twice by a fine due to drinking alcohol driving, once again driven alcohol, and the motive and motive of the crime.