A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 28, 2006, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Incheon District Court on December 28, 2006, and a summary order of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on July 4, 2012.

On August 16, 2017, while under the influence of alcohol of 00:10% from around 00:083%, the Defendant driven a Maz bow at a section of 300 meters from the front side of the luxal lux of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is located in 34(Cheongnam-dong), to the front day of the red-interest convention located in 44(Dong dong-dong), as the same lux of the Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving a drinking and inquiry about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating the driving of drinking alcohol and the statement in the circumstances of the driver in charge of drinking alcohol;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to report an investigation (prior convictions in the same case);

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The Defendant, with the reason for sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, once driving alcohol again, even though he had a history of criminal punishment four times due to drinking driving, including the previous conviction in the judgment.

The defendant has a history of criminal punishment of ten times, including the previous conviction of the above drinking alcohol driving.

The Defendant had committed a large amount of corruption at the time of committing the instant crime.

The risk of driving under the influence of alcohol was a big situation.

When considering the social risk of drinking driving along with the fact that the defendant was found to have been in the fifth place due to drinking driving, the defendant's liability for the crime cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak.

However, the defendant shows that the defendant recognized the crime in this court, and shows a strong reflectivity.

. against the Defendant.