A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

On March 23, 2007, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court on March 23, 2007, and sentenced to imprisonment for six months, suspension of execution two years, and suspension of execution on March 5, 2009 with respect to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Goyang Branch of the Seoul Western District Court on November 6, 2008.

Although the Defendant had been subject to punishment twice or more for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act as above, the Defendant driven a C-car at a section of about 500 meters in front of the “Yyang-gu Seoyang-gu Yyang-gu 948, Goyang-gu 948, Goyang-si 948, while under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of 0.164% at around 22:40 on August 12, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

3. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiry reports;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;

2. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

3. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, where the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had a record of multiple times of punishment due to drinking driving in the past, and where he/she pays attention to the risk of drinking driving, etc., the Defendant should be strictly punished.

On the other hand, it is considered that the sentencing factors are favorable to the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case and divided the wrong facts, and the defendant is in a situation where the defendant is reinstated and again attends the workplace and has family members to support.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.