A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On May 28, 2007, the Defendant issued a summary order of KRW 500,000 as a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act in the Busan District Court's Dong Branch Branch, and on October 7, 2008, a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for the same crime in the same court.

On May 29, 2012, on May 23:17, 2012, the Defendant driven B 5 vehicles with blood alcohol concentration of about 0.223% from the 1km section from the front street in the Northern-dong, Busan to the front street in the same location.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. An inquiry into the results of crackdown on drinking driving, a report on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver, and a report on detection of a drinking driver;

1. Response to the request for appraisal;

1. Previous records: Application of criminal records, etc. and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal facts and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act which choose the penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc. requires strict punishment for the defendant in light of the following: (a) although the defendant had a history of criminal punishment on several occasions due to drunk driving, he committed the instant crime of the same kind; (b) the degree of blood alcohol is high by 0.223%; (c) the degree of punishment for the crime of drunk driving has been strengthened due to the revision of the Road Traffic Act.

However, it is decided as ordered in consideration of the fact that the defendant's mistake is contrary to the defendant's judgment, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.