A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight 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 June 10, 2013, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of three million won for a crime of violating road traffic law (drinking driving) at the Seo-gu District Court’s Seo-Support on June 10, 2013, and on October 20, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to a summary order of a fine of two million won for the same crime at the same court on October 20, 2014.

Nevertheless, on December 1, 2017, the Defendant driven a BN-si car under the influence of alcohol concentration of approximately 0.088% from approximately 500 meters from the 411st century-ro, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, 201 to the 113nd roads of the Republic of Korea in the same Holl-dong-ro 113.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving under drinking, inquiry into the results of crackdown on driving under drinking, report on the circumstances of the driver under drinking, investigation report (report on the circumstances of the driver under driving under drinking), and notification of the results of crackdown on driving under drinking;

1. Previous conviction in judgment: Application of a reply letter to inquiry, such as criminal history;

1. The provision of Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the selection of imprisonment for a crime under the relevant provision of the Act;

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 defendant, on the ground of sentencing Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, committed the crime of this case at another time even though he had the record of criminal punishment for driving under drinking, on the other hand, even though he had already been sentenced to criminal punishment on two occasions, considering the fact that the defendant is against the time of committing the crime of this case, there is no record of the crime exceeding the fine, drinking volume, and other circumstances shown in the argument of this case