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

[criminal history] On January 14, 2013, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 4 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Incheon District Court, and KRW 5 million as a fine in the same court on September 29, 2014.

[Criminal facts] On July 18, 2018, the Defendant driven D Launa car under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.148% in blood on the front of “C” located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving and notification of the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Investigation report (report on the situation of the driver in charge); and

1. Photographs to measure drinking;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, (A);

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1)1 of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 15530, Mar. 27, 2018); Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the same Act regarding criminal facts; Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44 of the same Act regarding the

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. The Defendant’s crime of sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on the grounds of sentencing is deemed to have driven under the influence of alcohol once again while under the influence of alcohol, even though he had a history of driving under the influence of alcohol twice. The Defendant committed a crime by a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report that the amount of running car in question is far distance and driving, and thus, the Defendant was exposed to the suspected suspicion of drinking, and the nature of the crime is not very good.

Since drinking driving includes not only the defendant's own life but also the risk of threatening the safety of other unspecified drivers, there is a social need to punish it strictly.

The defendant, at the time of the first detection, seems to have denied the criminal act.

The defendant.