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

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

Criminal facts

On December 13, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving), etc. in the Goyang Branch of the Jung-gu District Court on December 13, 2007, and on May 15, 2008, the same court was sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and suspended execution for 2 times or more for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On July 3, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol with 0.172% of blood alcohol concentration at around 22:30, the Defendant driven a vehicle B, with approximately KRW 150 meters at the top of the Goyang-gu Goyang-dong Goyang-dong Goyang-gu Goyang-dong Goyang-dong from the front of any main point in the Goyang-gu Goyang-dong Goyang-dong Goyang-dong Goyang-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Inquiry the results of the drinking driving control;

3. Previous records of judgment: The application of criminal records, repeated statements, and statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Articles 148-2 (1) 1, and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act of the option of punishment;

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

4. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime even though he/she had been punished for drinking driving several times in the past, and the drinking driving is likely to cause serious human damage by causing large traffic accidents, etc., which are disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the fact that the defendant recognized all the facts charged in this case and reflected in it is an element of sentencing favorable to the defendant.

Furthermore, the sentencing data, such as the age, character and behavior, and environment of the defendant, were considered equally.