A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a fine for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Suwon Friwon method, and two million won as a fine in the same court on March 13, 2013.

Although there was a record of punishment for drinking driving two or more times as above, the Defendant 1 driven a BM car under the influence of alcohol concentration of about 0.184% from the section of about 50 meters from the 50-meter alcohol level to the front day of the water source located in the street in the commercial area, after viewing the water source located as the drinking source in the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and a copy of a summary order;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution (the favorable circumstances of the reason for sentencing) - The defendant has the record of having been punished several times for the same crime. - The favorable circumstances are high alcohol concentration in the blood of the defendant. - The defendant recognized all the criminal facts. - The defendant has no record of being punished exceeding the fine for the same crime. - The defendant’s record of the punishment for the drinking of the defendant was taken into account that there is time interval between the crime and the crime of this case once in 209 and once in 2013. The sentence should be imposed as ordered in consideration of all the conditions of the sentencing revealed in the trial process in each of the above circumstances.