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 April 15, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of 2.5 million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving) in the Goyang Branch of the District Court of Jung-gu on April 15, 2008. On February 3, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution.

As such, the defendant has been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On July 13, 2014, at around 20:15, the Defendant driven B-car at a section of about 30 meters from the 30-meter radius to the high-speed road of the front of the head of the pjun city in the principle of pjun city cooking and Eup, etc., while under the influence of alcohol with 0.15% of alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;

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/she had been punished twice due to drinking driving in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage due to a large traffic accident, which is 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.