A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six 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 August 16, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court on August 16, 201, and on November 8, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jung-gu District Court on March 8, 201.

On April 7, 2014, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.14% of blood alcohol concentration at around 23:26, the Defendant driven a Korean-style cruise car at approximately 500 meters away from the Do in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan-si, and from the Do in Soyang-si to the 4th road in the Goyang-si, Seoyang-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. A written report and an appraisal report from an employer;

3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;

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

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

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant committed the instant crime even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, and the drinking driving is in danger of causing serious human damage due to large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant in terms of sentencing.

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.