A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On October 21, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court). On August 4, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 3.5 million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Sungnam Branch of the Suwon District Court (Seoul Western District Court). On October 13, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court (Seoul Western District Court) and is currently under the suspended sentence.

Around 00:57 on January 9, 2012, the Defendant driven the EM5 car from approximately 1 km to about 29 minutes from the long distance in the area of the water zone located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government to the 29th day of Dongjak-dong in the same Gu, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.231%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial statement of the driver, the report on detection of the driver, and the report on blood collection;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records and investigation reports (the details of disposition taken to run sound driving, etc.);

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. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that the defendant was already sentenced to a fine twice due to drunk driving. On October 13, 2010, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and repeated the same act again even though he/she was under the suspended sentence.

Furthermore, it is difficult to view that there are circumstances to consider in the process of the crime of this case, as it is, after being exempted from the fee due to lack of fees by proxy driving technician, it leads to the crime of this case.

However, it is decided as per Disposition in consideration of the fact that the defendant is against the crime of this case.