A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

[criminal power] On January 10, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Ulsan District Court on November 28, 2008, KRW 3 million for a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the same court on November 28, 2008, KRW 3 million for the same crime in the same court on September 15, 2009, KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on September 15, 2009, and KRW 3 million for the same crime on January 11, 201.

【Criminal Facts】

On February 24, 2015, at around 22:06, the Defendant driven C-G car in the state of alcohol alcohol concentration of approximately 0.05% from approximately 5km section from the front of the restaurant in the name of Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun to the front of the long-distance in the front of the long-distance in the front of the city of Taean-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun, Taean-gun.

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

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A report on detection of a host driver;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (former records and attachment) and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on community service and lecture attendance order is that the defendant had been punished six times as a fine for the same crime but again drives under the influence of alcohol is under the circumstances unfavorable to the defendant. At the time of the crackdown of this case, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration was low, and the fact that the defendant did not have been punished for the same crime since 201, is favorable to the defendant.

In addition to the above circumstances, the sentence like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case.