A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】 On April 2, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to five months by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. at the Changwon District Court on April 2, 2009; on May 29, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to six months by imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc.; and on July 23, 2009, the Defendant appealed each of the above rulings and was sentenced to two years by the Changwon District Court on July 23, 2009.

【Criminal Facts】 Around 11:30 on September 26, 2013, the Defendant driven a Csch Rexton SUV car with approximately 300 meters distance from the front of the frequency in the mutual influence in the external influorri site to the nearest road of 48-1, 300 meters in front of the external influorri site, i.e., the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol content 0.170%.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on actions taken against an employer, and report on the status of an employer-employed driver;

1. Before ruling: Management of, inquiry into, and inquiry into, reports on, the records of, and criminal records, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (applicable to criminal suspects' judgments on the same kind of power and summary orders);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation is that even though the defendant had a record of being sentenced to concurrent punishment for the same kind of crime, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to imprisonment again because he/she committed the crime in this case.

However, the sentencing conditions indicated in the records of this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the fact that the Defendant is in profoundly against the crime of this case and not re-offending again.