A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that 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 March 24, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of 700,000 won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court on March 24, 2008, and was sentenced to a fine of 2 million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court on April 7, 2008.

On May 21, 2016, the Defendant, as a person who violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act two or more times, driven a BM5 vehicle under the influence of alcohol of about 0.086% in a section of approximately 200 meters from the breabbbbb, in the mutual influence of the city, Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si, Kim Jong-si, to the roads in front of the breabbb, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the state of state of drinking drivers, and notification of the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. Previous records of judgment: Application of criminal records, inquiry reports, investigation reports (report on attachment to the same type of case) and statutes;

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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing):

1. The reason for the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant again committed the instant crime despite the past record of having been punished for the violation of the Road Traffic Act due to multiple times as well as the past record of having been sentenced two times as the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, and that the Defendant did not have any particular reason for taking into account the circumstances at the time of driving under the influence of alcohol in this case is the reason for sentencing unfavorable to the Defendant.

However, there are favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the fact that the defendant does not drive under the influence of alcohol again, that the defendant has no record of being subject to a suspended sentence or heavier, that there was no record of punishment after April 7, 2008, and that there was no record of punishment after April 7, 2008, and the age, character and conduct of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and other circumstances after the crime.