A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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 April 10, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of one million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving) at the Daegu District Court, and on June 29, 201, the same court issued a summary order of one million won for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (drinking driving).

[2] On December 25, 2015, the Defendant driven Bsch Rexton car at the section of approximately 500 meters from the front of the restaurant to the Anden apartment road located in the same Gu cancer while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.118% in blood around 22:00.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Inquiries into the circumstantial records of drivers of drinking alcohol and the results of regulating drinking alcohol driving;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of an inquiry letter, such as criminal history, and an investigation report (a copy of summary order of the same criminal record as the suspect);

1. Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44-2 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act - The favorable circumstances: The fact that there is no record of being sentenced to a suspended sentence or heavier punishment; the defendant reflects the crime; the defendant committed the crime of this case even though he had been punished twice due to drinking driving; the defendant committed the crime of this case; the defendant's age, sexual conduct, intelligence and environment; motive, means and consequence of the crime; and the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as ordered by taking into account various factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, intelligence