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

On February 5, 2007, the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million as a fine for a violation of road traffic law at the Gwangju District Court on February 5, 2007, and a fine of KRW 4 million as a crime of violation of road traffic law at the Gwangju District Court's interest support on November 27, 2014.

On December 5, 2017, around 22:25, the Defendant driven a Cpoter 2 truck under the influence of alcohol leveling 0.220% from the 5km section of alcohol leveling from the 5km to the front line of the trade in the vicinity of the Peace S square, Sinpo City, Mapo-si, Seoul.

As a result, the Defendant had been driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol not less than twice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. Inquiries about the results of crackdown on drinking driving;

1. A written appraisal of alcohol during blood;

1. Previous conviction: Inquiry about criminal history and application of summary order-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Act and Articles 148-2 (1) 1 and 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the 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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, including the observation of protection and community service order, has been convicted of a fine not exceeding four times due to the driving of drinking, but the accused has the intention of committing a crime, and the accused has not driven under the influence of drinking again;

The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the fact that the defendant's age, sex, environment, etc. is different.