A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 22, 2013, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 4 million by a fine of KRW 1 million at the Incheon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, and on October 15, 2014, a summary order of KRW 5 million was issued by the Incheon District Court for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

Although the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act more than twice, on August 26, 2016, at around 08:14, the Defendant driven a BNS car with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.195% while under the influence of alcohol around August 26, 2016, and proceeded with approximately 100 meters from the roads front of the Cheongnam-dong, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, Cheongnam-gu, Incheon to the 320-lane and the 100-meter section from the roads front of the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on detection of a host driver and report on the circumstances of a host driver;

1. Before judgment: Inquiries, the statement of inquiry, the previous report of disposition and the report of results of confirmation, investigation report (report attached to the same type of judgment attached thereto), and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes of summary order attached thereto;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the fact that he/she repents his/her mistake, etc.);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc., including five identical criminal records, when the defendant drives a vehicle under the influence of alcohol despite the fact that there are many criminal records violating the Road Traffic Act, including the same kind of criminal records. However, although the defendant was not a substitute driver after drinking, the defendant was driving a vehicle to move the vehicle parked in the prohibited area of parking, which is not a substitute driver but is not a substitute driver, to a normal parking area, and the driving distance was shorter.