A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 30, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1.5 million as a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) from the Seogu District Court branch on October 30, 2008, and on May 31, 201, the Daegu District Court received a summary order of KRW 2 million as a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving).

On August 17, 2017, around 00:25, the Defendant driven a low-speed car with the alcohol concentration of about 0.093% in the direction of approximately 90 meters from the front line of the trade name in the vicinity of the used car in the Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, to the front line of the 10-lane 10-ro 11 of the same Gu rocks.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, even though the Defendant violated the prohibition of drinking at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries about the results of regulating driving of drinking, making a statement on the circumstances of the driver of drinking, and notifying the results of regulating driving of drinking;

1. Making teas;

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

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Taking into account the following: (a) the reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act in the suspended sentence is that the Defendant was punished as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, and that the Defendant was arrested at the end of the police’s shooting and conducted a measurement of drinking in order to avoid the crackdown on driving alcohol; (b) there is a need for a strict punishment for the Defendant.

However, there is no criminal history after the previous 2011 ruling that the defendant recognized the defendant's mistake and reflects, that the defendant would not drive drinking again and disposed of the vehicle (transfer), that the family members of the defendant and the branch members want to dissipate the defendant's preference to the defendant.