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

[criminal power] On April 18, 2008, the defendant received a summary order of one million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) from the Jeju District Court on April 18, 2008, and on December 10, 2009, the above court received a summary order of six million won or more as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving).

【Criminal Facts】

On April 4, 2016, at around 21:26, the Defendant driven B le-car under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.154%, from the two-lane section around the Hanma Hospital in the Jeju-si, to the front day of the Jeju-si in the Jeju-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiry into the result of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. The circumstantial statement of the employee;

1. A written appraisal of blood alcohol;

1. Previous records: Criminal records and other inquiries, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for a crime: Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of imprisonment;

1. Discretionary mitigation: Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following conditions of sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the statement of reasons for sentencing, shall be considered) shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the following circumstances:

The favorable circumstances: The defendant's vindication that all facts of crime are recognized and considered to be favorable: The fact that there are two times the records of punishment of fine for the same kind of crime, that the blood alcohol concentration is considerably high, that the proxy driver did not have any and many alcohol, etc. can not be a justifiable reason in this case in light of the above blood alcohol concentration. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that the motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, the defendant's occupation, age, and family relation are above the above blood alcohol concentration.