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

On April 27, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Central District Court on April 27, 2009, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 3 million for the same crime at the same court on December 22, 2009, four criminal records of the same kind.

On September 7, 2017, around 05:40 on September 7, 2017, the Defendant driven B-car with alcohol content of about 50 meters from a section of about 140 meters from the street of 140-ro 140-ro 17 in Hancheon-ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul to the street of the same 17-ro 17-ro.

As a result, the Defendant driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, and driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

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

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 reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act is that the Defendant had been punished three times due to drinking alcohol driving in the past, and again commits the instant crime, taking into account the circumstances that are disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as the fact that the amount of alcohol concentration during blood at the time of the instant case is very high. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and reflects the mistake, the Defendant did not have any history of punishment exceeding the past fine, and the fact that there is old mother who should support the Defendant.