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 February 18, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on February 18, 2010. On March 9, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of two million won for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Seocheon Branch of the Daejeon District Court.

On August 30, 2013, 02:02, the Defendant driven a B K7 car in the state of alcohol alcohol content of approximately 0.163% on the 21st national highway in the principle of D if the Defendant had the same city office from the front of a restaurant in the mutual and American cities of Bocheon-si to the 21st national highway in the same city office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Notification of the results of the crackdown on drinking driving, the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and the details of crackdown;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of inquiry requests, such as criminal records, and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, such as probation, community service order, and order to attend a lecture, is that it is dangerous for not only the offender, but also a dangerous crime threatening the life and property of other persons, and the defendant already punished several times due to drinking driving, but also repeated the crime of drinking, and the blood alcohol concentration at the time was very high as 0.163%. In light of the above, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, all of the crimes of this case are deemed to be against the truth while the defendant is fully aware of the crime of this case, there are no particular human and material damage due to drinking driving of this case, there is no penalty power exceeding the fine of the defendant, and detention of the defendant is excessive to the dependants.