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

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of KRW 7 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Changwon District Court's Mapo Branch's support on September 4, 2015, and on May 17, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two or more times for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) by having been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two or more times for the same crime in the same court.

On December 19, 2018, around 00:35, the Defendant driven a DNA liquid car with approximately 2 km alcohol concentration of about 0.196% while under the influence of alcohol from the front road of Changwon-si, Changwon-si B to the front road of C apartment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation report (report on the circumstances of an immigration driver);

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Criminal history records, investigation reports (Attachment of criminal records of a suspect), and application of five copies of written judgments;

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the Defendant had been convicted of five times only due to drunk driving (hereinafter referred to as a fine four times and imprisonment one time). When the Defendant was found to have been guilty due to a drunk driving in the past, all of the blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.1%, and at this time, the blood alcohol concentration exceeded 0.2%, and the risk of the accident was high due to driving under the influence of alcohol at least 0.2% at a very time. Therefore, the Defendant

The most recently punished due to drinking driving, instead of receiving benefits from the suspension of the execution, was ordered to attend a law-abiding driving order to prevent drinking driving, but no more than several months have passed after the expiration of the suspension of the execution period, and thus, the defendant's sentence is inevitable.

However, it seems that it is not appropriate for the correction of the correction of the defendant's edification to place too long-term confinement of the defendant in light of the family situation.