A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol 0.072% on June 25, 2007, and was under the control of driving under the influence of alcohol 0.072% on August 7, 2007, and was sentenced to a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Busan District Court Branch Branch of Incheon District Court on August 7, 2007. On April 21, 2014, the Defendant was under the influence of driving under the influence of alcohol 0.152% on May 15, 2014, and was charged with the violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Seoul Northern District Court on May 15, 2014.

On May 30, 2014, at around 00:20, the Defendant driven B 130 automobiles under the influence of alcohol with approximately 0.172% of alcohol concentration from the 1km section from the home flass road located in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, to the front road of the 567-gu, the same Gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The circumstantial report of an employee;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: To apply inquiry reports and investigation reports (the application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a summary order and indictment);

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances, etc. deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution (see, e.g., Reasons for discretionary mitigation);

1. Probation and lecture attendance order shall be decided as per the Disposition on the grounds of Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act or more;

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant drives a vehicle in the high drinking state of 0.172% even though he had the record of violating the alcohol driving two times, but there are many kinds of arguments in this case, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of being punished more than a suspended sentence, that the defendant seems to be against his mistake, that the defendant does not proceed to a traffic accident other than drinking driving, that the defendant's wife is waiting for childbirth, and that the defendant's age, family relation, character, environment, history, motive of the crime in this case, circumstances leading to the crime in this case, etc.