1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

On November 30, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Busan District Court, and on March 4, 2009, the defendant violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of the Road Traffic Act at least two times by receiving a summary order of a fine of 1.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

On May 22, 2016, the Defendant driven a car with approximately 40 km C-benz in the direction of Seoul on the highway located on the Gag-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Daejeon-do, from around the trade influence, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.22% among blood transfusion around 01:50 on May 22, 2016 to around 236.7 km in the direction of Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (referring to the same previous convictions);

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;

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

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

4. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Observation, etc. of Protection, etc. of Social Service and Order to Attend the lecture, and Article 62-2(1) of the same Act, and Article 59 of the same Act on the Monitoring, etc. of Protection, etc. of the same kind of reasons for sentencing, the fact that drinking value is considerably high is not subject to punishment for the same crime since 2009, and the fact that drinking value is not subject to punishment for the same crime after 209, shall be considered as favorable factors