A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong site for the purpose of violation of the Road Traffic Act. On October 21, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of three million won for a fine of three million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Suwon District Court’s Pyeongtaek site for the purpose of violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On December 9, 2018, around 16:45, the Defendant driven a Da QM3 car from the parking lot in front of the “C” restaurant to the bus stops near the above restaurant, while under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.107%, from the section of about 10 meters to the bus stops near the above restaurant.

As a result, the defendant has been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again even though he has violated the prohibition on drinking at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving and a report on actual condition survey;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reply to inquiries about criminal records, etc., investigation reports (Attachment to judgment, etc.);

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. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. The execution of imprisonment is suspended in consideration of the fact that the defendant was punished again for the reason of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and again commits the crime of this case, but the nature of the crime is not good, considering that the defendant has no record of committing a crime exceeding the previous fine, and an order to attend a course is imposed to prevent recidivism.