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 this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 30, 2009, the Defendant issued a summary order of 700,000 won of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at an Ansan Branch of Suwon District Court on January 30, 2009, and on June 9, 201, the Defendant issued a summary order of 2.5 million won of a fine to a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the same court on June 9, 201.

On April 9, 2015, at around 00:15, the Defendant driven a volume of approximately 500 meters from the central station in the Yandong in Ansan-gu to the front of the terminal distance in the same movement, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.132% of blood alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the situation of running a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Notification of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A), investigation reports (reports attached to the previous records and summary orders);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

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

1. In light of the fact that the sentencing of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. was significantly high in blood alcohol concentration at the time of the instant crime, and the Defendant committed the instant crime again even if he was punished twice or more due to drinking driving, etc., it is necessary to severely punish the Defendant accordingly.

However, the above punishment shall be determined by taking into account all the factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant reflects his mistake and repents, that there is no penalty force other than fine, and that there is no other punishment force on the defendant, and the age, occupation, environment and circumstances after the crime.