A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

[criminal history] On November 23, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to six months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of road traffic law (driving alcohol), etc. on the part of the Suwon Friwon, and on November 30, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of five million won due to a violation of road traffic law (driving alcohol) at the Jung-gu District Court on November 30, 201, and on October 13, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for four months of imprisonment with prison labor due to a violation of road traffic law (driving alcohol) at the Dong-gu District Court in Seoul.

[2] On December 3, 2016, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s Brocketing Pacific Cargo at approximately 500 meters away from the 184-4 Haju-si Haju-si Haju-si Haju-si Haju-si 47 meters away from the 184-4 Haju-si Haju-si Haju-si Haju-si, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.063% during blood transfusion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. A report on the detection of a primary driver;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment report, such as the previous one and summary order) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of small volume is due to driving under the influence of alcohol in 2010. However, the Defendant has a history of having been sentenced to imprisonment due to repeated driving of alcohol, and the Defendant has a history of causing a traffic accident while driving under the influence of alcohol in 2008.

The Defendant committed the instant crime even though he had to drive under the influence of alcohol, even though there is no inevitable reason to do so, in consideration of the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, in order to prevent the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime; and (b) by severely punishing repeated drinking; and (c) considering the purpose of the Road Traffic Act, it is inevitable to severely punish the Defendant.

However, the defendant's blood alcohol concentration is not high at the time of committing the crime of this case and the distance of driving is not relatively long, and the defendant is also the defendant.