A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On July 15, 2008, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act by the Incheon District Court. On June 10, 2009, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million by the same court as a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving). On June 4, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of KRW 6 months by imprisonment with labor for a crime of violating the Road Traffic Act (driving).

On June 8, 2018, at around 00:40, the Defendant driven a Dystex motor vehicle with approximately 300 meters alcohol concentration at around 0.109% in blood, from the front side of the “ shopping” road in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, to the front side of the 63 (Uam-dong), as the same Gu cancer.

As a result, the Defendant again driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol in violation of the prohibition on driving under the influence of alcohol more than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the circumstances of the driver involved in driving;

1. Inquiries about the crackdown on drinking;

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, report on investigation (the previous confirmation of such past history);

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

1. The reason for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for the crime of this case is that the Defendant, who had been already punished twice or more due to drinking driving, drives a vehicle again, and the nature of the crime is not less than that of driving a vehicle again. The Defendant previously had a record of criminal punishment three times, including a suspended sentence of imprisonment due to the same kind of crime; the amount of alcohol concentration in blood at the time of detection reaches 0.109%; and the driving of a vehicle is highly likely to cause harm to another person’s life, body, etc., and thus, it is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognizes the crime of this case and reflects the mistake, and drives drinking.