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.

Punishment of the crime

On September 11, 2008, the defendant received a summary order of one million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act from the Jung-gu District Court on September 11, 2008, and a summary order of one million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on November 17, 201.

Criminal facts

On October 14, 2012, at around 04:40, the Defendant driven a Crane car under the influence of alcohol content of about 50 meters from the front road of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 61-4Rabbbbroas, to the front road of the building in front of the building in the same 61-5 Liberas, the Defendant driven the Crane car under the influence of alcohol content of 0.073%.

Accordingly, the defendant was punished twice as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Notification of the control results of drinking driving and the circumstantial report of drinking drivers;

1. Photographs;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records;

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 consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. [the scope of applicable sentences] The defendant is highly likely to be subject to criticism in that he/she committed the same kind of crime even though he/she had been punished twice due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act, despite the fact that he/she again committed the same crime. In cases where a person who had been punished twice or more for drinking driving again drives a drinking again, it is necessary to punish the defendant strictly in light of the purpose of the amended Road Traffic Act, which is to punish him/her by raising the statutory punishment.

However, the defendant is against the crime of this case, and the defendant is the defendant.