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

[criminal history] On February 14, 2012, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating road traffic law at the Seoul Central District Court on March 16, 2012, and a fine of KRW 4 million for the same crime at the Seoul East East District Court on March 16, 2012, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of four months for the same crime at the same court on June 7, 2013.

[2] Although Defendant 1 had been able to violate Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act twice or more, Defendant 2 driven a C New Franchising car on December 05, 2016 with approximately 06:40 meters alcohol concentration at approximately 200 meters away from the section of 200 meters of blood alcohol level to the front road of the Seongbuk-ro New Franchisa Hospital, Seongbuk-gu Seoul National University located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, and around 99-ro, Seongbuk-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

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

1. Previous convictions: References to inquiries, investigation reports (report attached to the same type of judgment, etc.), text of the judgment, and application of each summary order Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Consideration of the criminal records of the accused, the circumstances leading to driving of drinking, and the fact that an order to attend a lecture or an order to provide community service is inconsistent with the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;