A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who, while under the influence of alcohol on June 21, 2011, drives a motor vehicle (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 2.5 million from the Suwon Friwon on June 30, 201), drives a motor vehicle on August 15, 201 (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 4 million at the Incheon District Court on September 2, 201) while under the influence of alcohol (the issuance of a summary order of KRW 4 million at the Incheon District Court on September 2, 201), violates Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

On May 27, 2018, the Defendant driven a Chive-p motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.186% from the 1km section around the central market located in the wife Kim Gam-dong, Gam-si, Gam-si, to the road in the south of the wife population in Gam-si, Gam-si, Gam-si, the Defendant driven a Chive-p motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of 0.186% in blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A traffic accident report, or a report on the detection of any violation of traffic laws on roads;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Records of judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (verification of the same record as the suspect) statute;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. The crime of this case on the ground of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Order to Attend a lecture is that the defendant, who had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had had to

However, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, and the last detection of the defendant by drinking driving has passed seven years from the date of the crime of this case around August 201.