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

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On May 13, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 1.5 million won to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court on May 13, 2008; on June 23, 2011, the Defendant was issued a summary order of 2 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Sungnam Branch Support Center, which was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on May 9, 2013; on January 24, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 6 months, a suspended sentence of 2 years; on April 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking) at the Dong District Court of Seoul Central District Court on the same day, and on April 29, 2016.

[2] On March 19, 2016, the Defendant driven a CNpon vehicle from around 200 meters to around 1239-4, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, on a restaurant where the trade name in Gangnam-gu, Seoul is unknown while under the influence of alcohol level of 0.104% during blood transfusion, and at around 200 meters to the road in front of 1239-4, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under the liquor:

1. Making a report on the circumstances of the driver involved in driving and inquiring about the results of crackdown on drinking;

1. Previous conviction: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of inquiry about criminal history;

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

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 53 and Article 55(1)3 of the Act on Reduction of Small Quantity are as stated in its reasoning, and the Defendant was found to have been punished by drinking on several occasions, and even though he/she was indicted due to drinking driving, he/she again driven in the state of drinking whose alcohol concentration in blood exceeds 0.1% without any cambing.

The driving of a defendant's drinking seems to have been damp, and there is a high possibility of social criticism in light of the risk.