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

On February 21, 2014, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 1,00,000,000 from the Suwon District Court as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving of Drinking), and on July 1, 2014, a summary order of KRW 5,00,000,000,000 was issued from the Suwon District Court on the same crime, respectively.

On February 5, 2017, at around 17:50, the Defendant driven a B-hand car with alcohol content of about 10.5 km from the front of the golf practice site in Pyeongtaek-si to the front road of the 10.5km of the 10.5km of the 10.5km of the 10.158% of alcohol content in the blood.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A site for drinking instruments measured on the day of the accident;

1. A traffic accident report;

1. Previous conviction: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, and a report on investigation (Attachment to the previous summary order) by Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (including circumstances favorable to the examination in the following cases);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (The subsequent consideration has been made for favorable circumstances);

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances and the Defendant’s age, family relation, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

[ favorable circumstances] The Defendant’s confession of the instant crime and recognized his mistake, and the Defendant made efforts to prevent recidivism by disposing of the instant vehicle B, etc. after the instant crime, and the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment exceeding the fine; and the Defendant’s surrounding persons, including the Defendant’s children, wanting to leave the Defendant’s wife, etc. are maintaining a social ties relationship normally.

In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.