A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 2, 2016, the Defendant received a summary order of 1.5 million won from the Changwon District Court to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on February 29, 2008, the Busan District Court issued a summary order of 1.5 million won to a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

On July 6, 2016, the Defendant driven a car in B B in the section of about 50 meters on the front of the “Slun apartment” road located in 1212-1, Yongsan-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-gu, Changwon-si, 1208, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.058% of blood alcohol content on July 6, 2016.

As a result, the defendant was a person who had driven at least twice and driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the regulation of drinking drivers, report on the situation of drinking drivers, inquiry into the results of the regulation of drinking driving, and notification of the completion of correction;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports and investigation reports (a copy of summary order of the same kind of suspect's power attached);

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though not only had the record of being sentenced to a fine for violating the Road Traffic Act, such as the criminal facts stated in the judgment, but also had the record of being punished for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act once more, the Defendant committed the instant crime, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, more favorable sentencing such as the fact that the defendant would not drive under the influence of alcohol again in the future, that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case remains at the level of license suspension, and that the defendant has no record of being punished more than a suspended sentence.