A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

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

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Power】 On May 6, 2008, the Defendant issued a summary order of 1.5 million won by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) at the Jeonju District Court on May 6, 2008, and on September 18, 2008, the same court was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months by imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On February 5, 2009, the same court issued a summary order of 4 million won by a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving). On February 8, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 6 months by imprisonment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving without a license) and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 2 years by the same court on June 8, 2011, and the record of drinking

【범죄사실】 피고인은 2013. 11. 27. 16:27경 전주시 완산구 평화동 2가에 있는 ‘해물왕국’ 음식점 앞 도로에서부터 부근에 있는 ‘짬뽕명가’ 음식점 앞 도로까지 약 5미터 구간에서 혈중알콜농도 0.089퍼센트의 술에 취한 상태로 C 에스엠(SM)5 승용차를 운전하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the result of crackdown on drinking driving and on the circumstantial statement of a drinking driver;

1. Previous records: Application of inquiries, such as criminal records, and a copy of each judgment;

1. Relevant Article of the Act on Criminal Facts, Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation ( normal consideration in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below);

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution ( repeatedly considering the reason for discretionary mitigation);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, despite the fact that the Defendant had been subject to four times punishment due to drunk driving, is deemed to have committed the instant crime. However, the circumstances and nature of the crime are not good, but the distance to move to drinking driving is relatively short of five meters, and the Defendant sells a motor vehicle owned by the Defendant on January 18, 2014, which was subsequent to the instant case, to the effect that he will not drive the motor vehicle, and led to the confession of the instant crime.