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

On July 20, 2015, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of four million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court on July 20, 2015, and on March 28, 2016, the Changwon District Court issued a summary order of three million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On March 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) while under the influence of alcohol of 0.103% during blood transfusion at around 20:15, the Defendant: (b) driven a car B at the front road of the “Saman Park Gyeong-gu,” located in the 42-ro, Changwon-si, Gowon-ro, Gowon-ro, Seoul; (c) at approximately 100 meters away from the front road of the “Saman Park Gyeong-gu,” located in the 39-ro of the same Gu.

As a result, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement report on the situation of a driver in charge of drinking, inquiry of the results of crackdown on drinking driving, and notification of the completion of correction;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (A), latest records of the suspect, and attachment of a copy of a summary order);

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 (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine twice as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of alcohol) within one year, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant again committed the instant crime. The fact that the blood alcohol concentration level at the time of driving the instant drinking is high is the reason for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, it is against the fact that the defendant again does not drive a drinking again, and it is caused to drive a drinking of this case in order to move a vehicle parked on the street to a neighboring parking lot.