A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 13, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,50,000,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Seogu District Court Branch Branch on March 13, 2009, and on September 27, 2011, the same court issued a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime and violated the duty of prohibition on driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice.

On February 24, 2017, the Defendant driven B-P car in the state of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.155% in a section of about 2km from the front of the restaurant where it is impossible to know the trade name in the upper end of the Sinsi-si, Sinsi-si to the front road of the 14km-ro, the G-gu, the G-PPero-gun, the G-Pero-gun, where it is difficult to identify the trade name in the upper end of the cafeteria-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (report on confirmation of the criminal history of the suspect) statute;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. On the grounds of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, sex, family relation, family relation, home environment, motive and means of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined in full view of the sentence as ordered.

Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had the record of punishment due to drinking driving several times.

The defendant's final driving force of drinking is the past of five-year leisure time.

The defendant again does not commit the same crime.

There are many things.