A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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 February 11, 2009, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Road Traffic Act and for the violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving) and the suspension of execution for three months, and the above judgment became final and conclusive. On July 21, 2008, the above summary order became final and conclusive after receiving a fine of two million won for the violation of the Road Traffic Act from the same court.

On February 1, 2014, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol of 0.095% of blood alcohol concentration, driven approximately 5.9 km from the fested road in the Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), to the Haan-ro 13 apartment complex in the Haan-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City Special Metropolitan City), to the front road of 1310 dong-dong, as C Saturdays car.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Report on the occurrence of a traffic accident, report on the detection of a drinking driver, and inquiry into the results of the regulation of drinking driving;

1. Before the judgment: Criminal history records, investigation report (Attachment of the same type judgment), and the defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion is proved to be driving only about 20 meters from the entrance of the lower-ro 13 apartment complex to the 1310 roads of the above apartment complex at the time of committing the crime, and the defendant alleged that the friendly D was driving on his/her behalf of the defendant, until the entrance of the above apartment.

However, the following circumstances are revealed by considering the contents of the Defendant’s assertion and the statement made by the witness D in the second trial record, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that “D was present at the Defendant’s drinking place on that day,” and that “D was inconsistent with the Defendant’s statement on the basic circumstances at that time by making a statement to the effect that “D was not present at the Defendant’s drinking place on that day,” and that “D calls to her friend (E), and “D calls to her friend (E) and her friend that “the Defendant friended another friend and fried another friend by drinking” from the Defendant’s statement.