A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date of the final judgment.

Punishment of the crime

On April 5, 2007, the Defendant, at the Incheon District Court, issued a summary order of a fine of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and on January 9, 2009, the Defendant was a person who had been sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months of imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime in the same court. On November 8, 2013, when he was under the influence of Gyeonggi-gu while he was under the influence of alcohol of KRW 0.203% of the blood alcohol concentration at around 22:36, 2013, the Defendant driven approximately 3 km-type e-car owned by D from the commercial influence to the navigational in the e-glus of Gyeonggi-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Making a report on the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (applicable to previous records of the same kind of driving and attachment of judgment);

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. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

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

1. The proviso to Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. Although the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. had the record of two times a fine due to the crime of drinking or unlicensed driving from around 2001, and one time a suspended sentence of imprisonment was imposed, it is highly doubtful as to whether the Defendant’s opening of the instant crime is highly doubtful in light of the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime of drinking alcohol, and that the blood alcohol content of the instant case became in the state of drinking, and that there is a significant danger, and the Defendant has any effect on the Defendant’s prior to the suspended sentence.

Nevertheless, taking into account the fact that the defendant is expected not to repeat again, and that there is a need to look at the elderly's father suffering from dementia and the wife of a disease being administered with knife cancer.