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

Punishment of the crime

On August 26, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of a fine of two million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Jung-gu District Court on the same day, and on July 4, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Northern District Court on July 4, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on two or more occasions.

On October 23, 2017, at around 17:35, the Defendant driven a B-wheeled vehicle with alcohol level of about 0.153% while under the influence of alcohol level of about 50% at the section of approximately 500m in the south-si, Namyang-si, South-si, 778, Namyang-do, Jan-si, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Jan-si, South-do, 759, south-do.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of driving a drinking driver, report on the circumstances of a drinking driver, notification of the results of regulating driving of drinking, and inquiry into the results of regulating driving of drinking;

1. An accident scene photograph;

1. Previous convictions: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report-based previous convictions and results of confirmation;

1. Although the facts constituting the instant crime are recognized as favorable circumstances, such as the relevant legal provisions, Articles 148-2(1)1 and 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act, and the grounds for sentencing selective punishment of imprisonment are recognized as all of the instant crimes and reflects on them, the Defendant has been punished three times in the past. In particular, on July 4, 2013, at the Seoul Northern District Court of Seoul Northern District, the Defendant again committed the instant crime even though he/she was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years in the period of imprisonment for eight months due to a crime of violating the Traffic Act at the same time as the instant crime, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

In addition, since the blood alcohol concentration at the time of committing the instant crime is relatively high by 0.153%, the quality of the crime is not exceptionally applied.

Therefore, it is difficult to expect sufficient preventive effects on the crime of repeated drinking so far only with the punishment to the present time. Therefore, it is up to the extent that the defendant gives up without the desire to repeat the crime.