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

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

Punishment of the crime

On February 1, 2007, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Cleanju District Court, and on December 27, 2012, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 3.5 million as a fine for the same crime at the same court.

On April 4, 2017, at around 23:33, the Defendant driven a luice car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.052% in blood from about 500 meters to around 38,000, in the same rate as that of the Gu on the road near the hotel at a rate of 189, the petition rate of the Gu, the Defendant, at around 23:3, 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol on more than two occasions, even though he had a record of punishment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and a statement in the circumstances of the driver of drinking alcohol;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: References to inquiries, such as criminal history, investigation reports (verification of suspect drinking driving records), and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of two copies of summary orders;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under the main sentence of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had been driven three times before the instant case, the Defendant was committed in violation of the signal and at a disadvantage, such as the fact that the Defendant was led to confession and was in depth, the Defendant was living together and has a profoundly against the Defendant, and the distance of driving was relatively short, and other favorable conditions such as the Defendant’s age, family environment, motive and developments leading up to the instant crime,