A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2013, at around 03:50 on May 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) while driving a Grand Franchising vehicle under the influence of alcohol in approximately 3 km section from May 8, 2013, around 04:0 on the same day to the intersection of about 409 at the same 4:0 on the same day; (b) while driving the said Grand Franchising vehicle, the Defendant was driving the vehicle at the driver’s seat in a state of shocking the central separation stand and the sidewalk pent in the above three-distance intersection; (c) the Defendant was found to have a reasonable reason to recognize that the Defendant driven the vehicle while driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol, such as in-depth, in an inaccurate and smelling manner, from the police officer D to the police officer who was dispatched to the scene after receiving 112 reports; and (d) the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the police officer to take a drinking measuring instrument within the said three-minute distance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on driving of a drinking driver, and the ledger of the user of a drinking measuring instrument;

1. Application of statutes on photographs of damage;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on the Crime and Articles 148-2 (1) 2 and 44 (2) of the Road Traffic Act that selects the penalty;

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

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

1. The fact that the sentencing of Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., was three times due to a fine due to a drunk driving in the past and a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to a drunk traffic accident, and the fact that the instant vehicle is sold and the driving under the influence of alcohol is not resumed, etc.