A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Punishment of the crime

On September 26, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in order for the Defendant to commit a violation of the Road Traffic Act. On December 4, 2009, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a fine for the same crime from the Sungnam branch of Suwon District Court on December 4, 2009, and on February 10, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime with prison labor for the said two-month branch of Suwon District Court on February 10, 201.

On May 31, 2015, at around 02:22, the Defendant driven a B-car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.140% from a section of approximately 2km from the front day of the Dobong-gu Facheon-gu, Youngcheon-gu, Seoul to the front day of the same Lincheon-do.

As a result, although the defendant was punished not less than twice due to drinking driving, he again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and the written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning criminal facts, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (see the reasons for sentencing) of the Criminal Code for discretionary mitigation has already been subject to three times punishment due to drunk driving, and in addition, in the third case of drunk driving, even though the defendant was subject to the prior action of probation in the case of drunk driving, he again committed the instant drunk driving. In addition, in this case, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that the defendant was unable to operate normally, and that he was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he would compromise with the central shock absorption facilities. It is inevitable to sentence the defendant.

However, the punishment shall be determined by taking into account the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake and that the two drinking power in the preceding two cases has relatively passed.