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

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

Criminal facts

The Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving on August 27, 2008) on August 27, 2008 in Gyeyang-gu District Court, and was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for the same crime in the same court on November 14, 2012, and was sentenced to a fine of 1.5 million won for the same crime in the same court on February 5, 2013, and was sentenced to a fine of 5 million won for the same crime at the same court on February 5, 2013.

On June 11, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of 0.092% of blood alcohol concentration, and around 03:00 on June 11, 2014, the Defendant driven BM5 automobiles to the 8-distance road in the Hanyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si, Goyang-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Report on the results of the drinking driving control, and a driver's license inquiry;

3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

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

6. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished three times due to drinking driving in the past, and that drinking driving is dangerous to cause serious human damage due to large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognizes all the facts charged in this case and supports two children are factors that are favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, sentencing materials, such as the age, character, conduct and environment of the defendant, were taken into consideration equally.