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 June 10, 2010, the Defendant issued a summary order of fine of two million won by committing a violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Seoul Southern District Court, and a summary order of three million won by the same court on March 19, 2013.

On June 30, 2016, at around 07:00, the Defendant driven B Karen car at the section of about 30km from the front of the white tank apartment of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si to the upper street of the Garen-si, Changwon-si, Sungwon-si to the upper street of the 0.07:05% alcohol concentration.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the drinking driving control, notification of correction completion, and inquiry into the results of the crackdown on drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports (A) and Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (a copy of summary order);

1. Relevant Article 148-2 (1) 1 and Article 44 (1) of the Road Traffic Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

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 extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant again commits the crime of the same kind of crime even though he/she had been punished two times more as the crime of violating the Road Traffic Act, as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below, even though he/she had been sentenced to a fine for the same violation of the Road Traffic Act.

However, there are favorable reasons for sentencing, such as that the defendant's mistake is divided in depth and reflected, that is, immediately after drinking, it is not immediately driving, but controlled on the working day following drinking, that the blood alcohol concentration at the time of drinking driving in this case remains at the level of license suspension, that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than a suspended sentence, and that the defendant remains at the level of license suspension, as well as other favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.