A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On November 25, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 1.5 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking), on August 9, 2009, the Seoul Northern District Court issued a summary order of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking), and on December 31, 2009, the summary order of KRW 4 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving in drinking in driving in drinking), respectively, on the support of inside of the Suwon Friwon method.

On August 1, 2019, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol 0.249% from around 23:26, 2019, driven a f-hurd vehicle from the front of the hospital located in Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun, B to the front of the convenience store located in the same military, at approximately 600 meters away from the F-hurbed vehicle.

Accordingly, the Defendant violated Article 44(1) of the Road Traffic Act at least twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Report on the circumstances of a driver who is placed in driving and notification of the results of regulating drinking driving;

1. Application of a reply to inquiry, such as criminal history, investigation report (inform of the judgment and a copy of the summary order), and statutes;

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

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

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act under the suspended sentence requires strict punishment of the Defendant inasmuch as the Defendant committed the instant crime even three times before driving the same drinking alcohol, as stated in its reasoning, inasmuch as he/she committed the instant crime.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime and committed the instant crime against the mistake, and thus, did not repeat the crime; (b) both the previous convictions are fines; (c) alcohol concentration and driving distance in the instant blood transfusion; and (d) the Defendant’s age, sex, state of health, and circumstances before and after the instant crime; and (c) all the sentencing conditions specified in the records and the previous theories, including the Defendant’s age, sex, current health conditions, and conditions before