A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 29, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Incheon District Court, and a summary order of KRW 4 million for the same crime at the same court on June 24, 2014.

Although the Defendant had had a history of driving alcohol twice or more as above, on October 3, 2016, the Defendant driven B Spact-based vehicles with a alcohol level of 0.115% under the influence of alcohol level of around 08:30 on October 3, 2016, and proceeded with approximately 10km from the front side of the Daegu-gu North Korean University Hospital, in front of the Daegu-gu University Hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver at home and report on the detection of the driver at home;

1. An appraisal report or a response to a request for appraisal;

1. Previous conviction: References to inquiries, investigation reports (verification of the same criminal records as the suspect), and copies of summary order attached thereto; and

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 (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

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 reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend a School, including the two-time criminal history of the same kind of crime, is that the Defendant is driving a vehicle under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that the Defendant violated the Road Traffic Act, and even if there were several criminal records of the instant crime, which led to the crime of this case where he drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. However, the Defendant is deemed to be under the influence of her marriage funeral hall, and the Defendant is deemed to have been able to drive a vehicle under the wrong judgment that he/she gets home home after drinking, and she was under the influence of drinking, and the Defendant did not go through a violation of other traffic-related Acts and subordinate statutes, his/her mistake is divided, and all other circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing,