A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

[criminal history] On September 1, 2008, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Gwangju District Court to a fine of KRW 1 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking), and on April 29, 2013, the Gwangju District Court received a summary order of KRW 7 million due to a violation of the Road Traffic Act (drinking).

[2] On February 21, 2017, around 00:17, the Defendant driven a FMW car under the influence of alcohol content of about 0.095% from the 10km section to the Defendant’s house located in the fMW car from the fM car to the fMW car in the direction of the Defendant’s house located in the fM city E from the fridong-gu to the front day of the Defendant’s house located in the frisi-si.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who violated the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol not less than twice, was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol again.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

1. Notification of the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol, statement of the situation of the driver driving, and inquiry of the results of crackdown on driving of alcohol (10 pages of investigation records);

1. Criminal Records: A written reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (Attachment of the same paper attached to the police investigation process), [the defendant has a problem in the police investigation process, and the defendant respondeds to the alcohol measurement while drinking more, so the defendant was not proven to have driven under the blood alcohol concentration exceeding 0.05%. However, according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, according to each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the police did not appear to have requested the defendant to take a alcohol measurement without the defendant's permission, so there is a problem in the demand for alcohol alcohol measurement.

In light of the overall details of the investigation and the statement of related persons, it is difficult to see that the defendant dysnish alcohol in his house.

Therefore, according to each of the above evidence, the facts charged of this case is found guilty, and each of the above arguments by the defendant cannot be accepted) shall be applied to the law.

1. Criminal facts;