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 this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 23, 2007, the defendant was sentenced to a fine of 2.5 million won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act at the Changwon District Court on July 23, 2007, a fine of 1.5 million won for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on October 15, 2007, and a fine of 3 million won for the same crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act in the same court on October 31, 201.

On June 10, 2016, at around 22:50, the Defendant driven a DNA cargo vehicle under the influence of alcohol level of 0.219% at the section of about 3 km, even before the Korea Highway Corporation located in the same Eup/Myeon from the front Do located in the window B of Changwon-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of the results of the regulation of drinking drivers, the report on the state of drinking drivers' standing statement, and the report on the state of drinking driving;

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Application of criminal records, reply reports, and other Acts and subordinate statutes;

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. Article 53 or 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The defendant of the reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, committed again the crime of this case even though he had been punished two times more as the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the fact that the blood alcohol concentration level is very high at the time of driving the crime of this case is the reason for sentencing disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the sentence like the order shall be imposed in consideration of the favorable reasons for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., which are favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant does not drive a drinking again again in the future, and that the defendant has no record of punishment heavier than a suspended sentence, and other conditions for sentencing under Article 51