A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On November 9, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Western District Court, and on January 4, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million as a fine for the same crime. On February 18, 2010, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year for six months with prison labor for the same crime at the Seoul Western District Court.

As above, the Defendant, who violated the regulations on the prohibition of drunk driving twice or more, once again, driven D SM5 automobiles in the state of drunk alcohol concentration of about 0.13% from the 3km section from the front side of the B apartment in Sungsung City to the front side of the C apartment, around 00:54 on 15, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigation reports and notification of the results of the control of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions: Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning criminal records and investigation reports (verification of criminal records of the same kind of suspect);

1. Article 148-2(1)1 and Article 44(1) of the former Road Traffic Act (Amended by Act No. 16037, Dec. 24, 2018); the choice of imprisonment for a crime;

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 (see, e.g., factors favorable to sentencing) of the Criminal Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime again despite the fact that he/she had been punished twice a fine by the same kind of crime and once a suspended sentence.

At the time of the crime of this case, the blood alcohol concentration and driving distance of the defendant are reasonable.

Defendant

Even according to his own statement, he dices a considerable amount of alcohol until late night, and was driving even though the period of time has not elapsed after drinking.

It is difficult to see that there is a circumstance in which the principal cannot be forced to drive directly.

It is inevitable to sentence the defendant who has driven under the influence of alcohol on the other hand despite the repeated wife.

However, in this court, the defendant's time to commit the crime and reflects the fact, and is human and material for the crime of this case.