A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

On October 21, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1,000,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Western District Court, and on January 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2,50,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jungyang Branch District Court (Seoul Western Branch Court).

As such, the Defendant has been punished two times or more due to drinking driving.

On January 29, 2014, at around 00:15, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.126%, and around 00:20, at around 00:20, the Defendant driven the BK7 car at a 1km section from the front road of the sampling hospital located in the Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. A report on the situation of running a motor vehicle with the driver’s license and a driver’s license inquiry;

3. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, references to criminal records, amounts of dispositions, results of confirmation, and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime, and subparagraph 1 of Article 152 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 43 of the Road Traffic

2. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition.

3. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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

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

6. The reason for sentencing of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the order to provide community service and attend lectures is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even in the past despite the past that he had been punished several times due to drinking driving, and that it is deemed that the nature of the crime is not good by paying attention to the social harm of drinking driving, etc.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.