A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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

The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won by the Ulsan District Court on February 28, 2008 for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won by the Seoul Central District Court on April 29, 2010.

On October 6, 2013, at around 22:40, the Defendant operated a B-to-purd passenger vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of 0.169% under the influence of alcohol from the front of the cafeteria in the B-to-be cafeteria in the Dannam Budget-to-Eup to the national highway No. 45% in the same military.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry requests, such as criminal records, and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture, is that the crime is a dangerous crime threatening not only to the life and property of another person, but also that the crime is not light of the nature of the crime, even though the defendant had already been punished several times due to drinking driving, and the accident of this case was repeated, and the blood alcohol content at the time was also very high as 0.169%. In light of the above, there is a need for strict punishment of the defendant.

However, the fact that the defendant seems to be against the truth while fully recognizing the crime of this case, that there is no particular human damage due to the drinking driving of this case, that there is no penalty force beyond the fine of the defendant, and that the detention of the defendant seems to entail excessive difficulties for the family members.