A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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

On March 11, 2011, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,50,000 from the Gwangju District Court to a fine of KRW 1.5 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and on June 20, 2013, the same court received a summary order of KRW 4 million for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act.

피고인은 2017. 10. 12. 21:01 경 시흥시 서울 대학로 278번 길 25-24, 로얄 팰리스 지하 주차장 입구에서부터 시흥시 정왕동 배 곧 3로 96, 토마토 김밥 앞 노상까지 약 30m 구간에서 혈 중 알코올 농도 0.145% 의 술에 취한 상태로 C SM5 승용차를 운전하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Investigation report (on-site and CCTV verification);

1. Each photograph;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of a copy of each summary order;

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. 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. It is recognized that the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the community service order and lecture attendance order shows the attitude of the defendant against the reason for sentencing, that the defendant disposed of the vehicle, that there is a disability of Grade 6 in visual disability, and that the establishment of an authorized broker office is difficult when a suspended sentence of imprisonment is sentenced.

However, the defendant has already been punished for the same kind of fine twice, and the alcohol concentration in blood is not lowered.

The defendant was making a false statement in the police, and turned the CCTV as a result of the CCTV verification.

The defendant is sentenced to a fine on the ground that he is an authorized broker.

However, if the defendant is punished more relatively than other people for such reason, the provision of a public brokerage law prohibiting the establishment of a brokerage office of the person who committed the crime will completely be stimulated to the legislative intent of the law.

The defendant shall work as an authorized broker for the crime of drinking.