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 of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

1. On February 2, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million by the Seoul Eastern District Court for the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and a summary order of KRW 2 million by the Jungbu District Court on January 5, 2009 for the same crime.

At around 10:30 on June 12, 2014, the Defendant, as a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, driven a PAPI-wheeled vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.081% at a section of about 8km from the front of a bus terminal located in the Gidong Gi-gu, Dong-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Seoul, to the same Gun and Eup/Myeon-ro 382 U.S. Do-ro 382.

2. The Defendant violated the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act operated PAPI vehicles that did not purchase mandatory insurance at the same time and place as the foregoing paragraph.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the control results of drinking driving, and report on the situation of drinking driving;

1. On-site photographs, traffic accident reports, and notification to the vehicles violating the Automobile Management Act;

1. Previous records: The application of criminal records, inquiry and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the provisions of Article 46 (2) and the main sentence of Article 8 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for each type of crime;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation [see, e.g., that the Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant case is relatively high, that the Defendant appears to reflect his/her mistake while recognizing all his/her mistake, and that there exists no history of punishment exceeding a fine];

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (Discretionary grounds for discretionary mitigation);

1. An order to attend a compliance driving lecture to prevent the re-offending of crimes under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act (the order to attend a compliance driving lecture in consideration of previous records, etc. on the market);