A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Records of Crimes】 On June 11, 2010, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,500,000 from the Seoul Northern District Court to a fine of KRW 1,50,000,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act. On November 30, 201, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Seoul Northern District Court to a fine of KRW 1,50,000 as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on July 18, 2013, was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years.

【Criminal facts” around 03:55 on June 15, 2018, the Defendant driven a vehicle with low alcohol level of 0.144% alcohol level while under the influence of alcohol at approximately 1km from the 13rd road of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the 78-1st road of the same Gu red hill-ro 78-1.

As a result, the defendant has been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, even though he has violated the prohibition of driving more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A mark, etc. of drinking numerical records;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of the Acts and subordinate statutes reporting criminal history;

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act (referring to driving under influence of alcohol) applicable to the facts constituting an offense, the choice of punishment for imprisonment, and the choice of punishment;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order was that the Defendant had been punished several times due to drinking, but once again, repeated the instant drinking driving.

After drinking alcohol, the Defendant thought that he was sleeped in the slick machine for four hours from the vehicle, and was driving the alcohol.

However, in the light of the criminal history of the defendant, the driving of drinking was more confisced.

Although it seems that it would have been necessary, it would have been criticized in that it had committed a second offense.

Even if the defendant was under control, the defendant was diving in the signal atmosphere, and he was under control by another person's report.