A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 8, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving), a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a fine of KRW 3 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act from the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch on October 31, 2008, and a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for the same crime from the Suwon District Court on September 18, 2010, respectively.

On August 15, 2017, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.121% during blood transfusion around 05:09, operated a C6-car and proceeded with the Section 680 meters from “the Vice Vice Minister for Second Permanent Residentship” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu, Incheon to the 1-11st road in the same Gu.

Accordingly, the defendant, who violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the above provision.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver and a report on the circumstances of the primary driver;

1. Previous conviction: References to inquiries, investigation reports (Attachment of a summary order), and copies of the summary order attached thereto;

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. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (the fact that his/her mistake is repented, etc.) of the mitigated amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on the Protection, Observation, etc. of the Order to Attend Police Officers are not good when the defendant drives a motor vehicle under the influence of three times the same criminal records. However, the defendant used an agent to drive the motor vehicle in the case of the crime of this case while driving the motor vehicle under the influence of three times. However, even if the defendant took advantage of an agent driver, although he did not go through the agent driver, he did not go against the driver's new wall time from the restaurant driver, and he did not directly drive the motor vehicle, and did not go against other traffic-related laws and regulations.